An Alabama Pastor's Epic Speech against Gay Marriage (Please finish drinking your beverage first)

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is no attack on the institution of marriage. It requires a built in, prerequisite bigotry on your part to assume that same sex marriage harms anyone.

ROFLMNAO!

Of course not... because if there was an attack on Marriage, that would make you people EVIL.

So, since its perfectly natural that folks don't like to feel of themselves as EVIL... they'll ignore ALL of the otherwise IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE wherein they are acting against the standards that Marriage, aggressively in an attempt to injure or kill it. "What Attack?"

For those keeping score, that is the same twisted reasoning, which the same cult uses to explain that the Palestinians aren't attacking Israel.

... Ludicrous.

OH! Almost forgot... the definition of BIGOT requires that the use of the word itself, is a incontestable demonstration of BIGOTRY!

Meaning that the best sign that the person you're dealing with is a bigot, is that they've just referred to you or someone else, as a bigot.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If same sex marriage has an effect on you, one or both of you is gay.

Oh what a delightfully feckless meme.

I just love those... .

Sadly, in truth, normalizing deviancy in my culture, effects everyone in the culture.

Sadly, for YOU, historically, those harmed worst by the normalization of deviancy has been the deviant.

Ya see scamp, there's not a single instance in human history, wherein the normalization of deviancy was not closely followed by the collapse of the infected culture. The collapse provides that the 'protections' afforded by the pop-culture evaporated, thus the deviants were painfully exposed when the new Sheriff set up shop... who went to work in every single instance, culling deviancy from his herd.

Now one of the downsides to running a disordered mind, is that it often precludes one from being sensitive to otherwise obvious clues. So my guess is that you will not be able to benefit from that one... .

But... When it is all said and done, I will know in my own mind, to my own satisfaction, that I did everything within my power, as painfully limited as it clearly is... to try to help the intellectually less fortunate, where I could.

"So... I've got THAT goin' for me."

 

[Seawytch]

Hello Emily...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And to be sure, I am not talking about banning marriage. I am advocating providing a legal means for people to group together, as one legal entity for any legal purpose, which has been done for centuries through incorporation. Where the new collective is legally recognized as one entity, rights and privileges established... with many configurations presently existing to accommodate numerous distinct purposes and where none of those configurations fit, redress the legislature to create one which does.

And this would provide legitimacy of the group, where marriage is inappropriate and given the mono-gender aspect of that particular deviancy and marriage being suited exclusively to the distinct genders, such is the school solution.

Naturally, the Left will not accept that solution, because it doesn't meet the goal of the Left, which is to undermine the US Culture, ripping it from its Judea-Christian mooring. But that is what nature creates civil war to solve.

.

.

.

Now with regard to spiritual healing...

I'm all for people seeking counseling prior to any long term commitment... as such comes with responsibilities that most citizens of the US today have been trained to reject, by the aforementioned advocacy of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle and for the reason stated.

My wife and I were guided toward counseling prior to marriage and told in no uncertain terms that we should not marry.

She the youngest of four children and the only girl... and me the oldest of three and the only son; we were told that our mutual egos would not be compatible once the RIDICULOUSLY hot sex faded. This from our own Pastor and one who had been close personal friends of my wife's family for decades... LOL! He literally told us that we represented the respective personification of 'the irresistible force and the immovable object' and that we had no chance to remain married and that we would make each other miserable.

That was well over 35 years ago.

And here we are, six near divorces and four children (three biological, one adopted) later... still at each others throats on a daily basis... and still very much in love.

Again... we've joined together; we're one.

We don't ask for anyone's permission for our union and we don't give a red rats ass who thinks what about it. And therein lies the distinction... between being rightly entitled and WANTING to be rightly entitled.

Where one is rightly entitled, they don't ask the government for permission, they don't ask their neighbors for permission, they don't ask the florist 'if they'll sell flowers', or the baker 'if they'll sell a cake'. They just do it... because: they're rightly entitled to do so.

Hi Where_r_my_Keys
My point is that the same way you had spelled out civil unions
was this the same legal options and process for both same sex and traditional couples?
As long as it is equal that is what the state can endorse if people agree the terms are written equally.

I see... and I agree that anyone can incorporate. Yes.

But not everyone should... just as not everyone should get married.

And isn't it wonderful that I; Republican and devotee to all that is Conservatism... and you a Democrat ... can both see the wisdom in that simple solution, where each and every would-be 'grievance' that the ANSA Cult has advanced, and which is axiomatically rejected, demonstrating that their 'would-be grievances' were profound deceits... and that their stated intentions were fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

So what's the difference between the ANSA Cult and us?

I submit that the distinction is, that you and I are honest brokers... reasonable people searching for a sound, sustainable solution.

Our mutual opposition, are not honest, they attack an institution which is deeply meaningful to people, with thousands of years of tradition and history, resting in unimpeachable, entirely natural, objectively reasoned principle... despite perfectly reasonable alternatives, meeting all of their professed goals... just so that can say 'they're member's too'.

That is wholly subjective, it's hateful, horrid and a manifestation of nothing short of old testament EVIL.

There is no attack on the institution of marriage. It requires a built in, prerequisite bigotry on your part to assume that same sex marriage harms anyone.

If same sex marriage has an effect on you, one or both of you is gay.

???
A. If same sex marriage is in your church or community it affects that community

How? Be specific. If it's in your church, your church chose it.?

B. If same sex marriage is pushed nationally in public as a right everyone should recognize or you're considered a bigot, that affects the public, gay or straight

Again how and again be specific. Being called a bigot takes no rights, benefits or privileges from you. Racists, if they don't want to be called racist, learned to keep their racist thoughts to themselves. Anti gay bigots will too.

C If people get harassed or fined for not wanted to participate in a gay wedding that is affecting others

If you can't follow the local laws as it applies to business practices, don't go into business. Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding if they are not the ones marrying.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hi Where_r_my_Keys
My point is that the same way you had spelled out civil unions
was this the same legal options and process for both same sex and traditional couples?
As long as it is equal that is what the state can endorse if people agree the terms are written equally.

I see... and I agree that anyone can incorporate. Yes.

But not everyone should... just as not everyone should get married.

And isn't it wonderful that I; Republican and devotee to all that is Conservatism... and you a Democrat ... can both see the wisdom in that simple solution, where each and every would-be 'grievance' that the ANSA Cult has advanced, and which is axiomatically rejected, demonstrating that their 'would-be grievances' were profound deceits... and that their stated intentions were fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

So what's the difference between the ANSA Cult and us?

I submit that the distinction is, that you and I are honest brokers... reasonable people searching for a sound, sustainable solution.

Our mutual opposition, are not honest, they attack an institution which is deeply meaningful to people, with thousands of years of tradition and history, resting in unimpeachable, entirely natural, objectively reasoned principle... despite perfectly reasonable alternatives, meeting all of their professed goals... just so that can say 'they're member's too'.

That is wholly subjective, it's hateful, horrid and a manifestation of nothing short of old testament EVIL.

There is no attack on the institution of marriage. It requires a built in, prerequisite bigotry on your part to assume that same sex marriage harms anyone.

If same sex marriage has an effect on you, one or both of you is gay.

???
A. If same sex marriage is in your church or community it affects that community

How? Be specific. If it's in your church, your church chose it.?

B. If same sex marriage is pushed nationally in public as a right everyone should recognize or you're considered a bigot, that affects the public, gay or straight

Again how and again be specific. Being called a bigot takes no rights, benefits or privileges from you. Racists, if they don't want to be called racist, learned to keep their racist thoughts to themselves. Anti gay bigots will too.

C If people get harassed or fined for not wanted to participate in a gay wedding that is affecting others

If you can't follow the local laws as it applies to business practices, don't go into business. Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding if they are not the ones marrying.

Well, ya can't hide a fascist!

It's almost word for word, how Bubba's wife described the lot of those who's businesses would be unable to afford her 'healthcare law'.

 

[Gadawg73]

If your church does not want to marry gay folk, fine, government has no business in any way stopping who your church can and can not marry. If 2 gay folk want to walk down and have a probate government official issue them a license to get married and a church WANTS TO marry them then YOU AND YOUR CHURCH that opposes gay marriage HAS NO SAY same as no one else has any say IF YOU do not want to marry them in your church.

 

[beagle9]

You wrote all this to defend gay marriage? That's amazing when one really thinks about what people are asking for today. The reason these problems didn't exist in the past, is because the things we are seeing today that are being asked for are simply weird in many peoples minds, even by today's standards. Now one can see that there is a conserted effort by those who have come together to fight for such things, but do they make up a majority opinion against those who want marriage left just as it is between a man & women? Now for those who want it to remain as is, then they are going to teach that anything other than that is just wrong right, and if they do that then will it be that they (the Christians along with their allies), will have to be defeated in their thinking eventually? Wrote for Skyler, but somehow it became separated from his post.

 

[Seawytch]

You wrote all this to defend gay marriage? That's amazing when one really thinks about what people are asking for today. The reason these problems didn't exist in the past, is because the things we are seeing today that are being asked for are simply weird in many peoples minds, even by today's standards. Now one can see that there is a conserted effort by those who have come together to fight for such things, but do they make up a majority opinion against those who want marriage left just as it is between a man & women? Now for those who want it to remain as is, then they are going to teach that anything other than that is just wrong right, and if they do that then will it be that they (the Christians along with their allies), will have to be defeated in their thinking eventually? Wrote for Skyler, but somehow it became separated from his post.

People felt about interracial marriage exactly the way you feel about gays marrying. A whole hell of a lot more people were opposed to interracial marriage when the SCOTUS ruled on it than are opposed to gays marrying today.

I'll tell you the same thing we told the racists...get over it.

 

[asaratis]

So if the law is that say... well, let's say that the law says that owning a human being is legal and helping those people who are the property of other people, to flee from their bondage... You're saying that it would be wrong for those people who disagree with that, to say... help those who are enslaved, to find freedom?

REALLY?

You're saying that 'THE LAW' is the law and rejecting the law is wrong?

But THAT would mean that the Federal judiciary was wrong, when it overturned the law in the vast majority of the states, which recognized and sustained the natural standard of marriage...

I mean, that's just one person saying that the vast majority of the people were wrong... just like that florist did, except that florist didn't proclaim that EVERYONE in her state couldn't sell flowers to celebrate that which she 'felt' was wrong... she just said "Not me... ."

You seem very confused about this stuff.

Hi Where_r_my_Keys
I would say that a state law that went too far and banned gay marriage from CHURCHES would
be unconstitutional by interfering with free exercise of religion.

If you want to ban marriages from the state laws, do it consistently
and have NO marriage at all, and just civil contracts for all people.
================================================
If you want to get all legal and technical about "personal marriages and relations"
maybe we need a different level of law if people are going to "mandate" on this level.

If you are going to require that gays be included, maybe the peopel of that state can
require that ALL couples go through spiritual healing and counseling to make sure
none of them are sick, abusive, adulterous, lying, committing relationship abuse/fraud, etc.
And require this counseling for ALL couples in advance, similar to how the Catholics require that
before sanctifying marriage. Either all agree on a policy or keep it out of the state and keep it private.
Parties can even organize their own political churches and sanctify couples and manage benefits,
since they are big enough to represent and coordinate on both local, district, state and national levels.
Why not set up means through there and keep it private by their beliefs.

Hello Emily...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And to be sure, I am not talking about banning marriage. I am advocating providing a legal means for people to group together, as one legal entity for any legal purpose, which has been done for centuries through incorporation. Where the new collective is legally recognized as one entity, rights and privileges established... with many configurations presently existing to accommodate numerous distinct purposes and where none of those configurations fit, redress the legislature to create one which does.

And this would provide legitimacy of the group, where marriage is inappropriate and given the mono-gender aspect of that particular deviancy and marriage being suited exclusively to the distinct genders, such is the school solution.

Naturally, the Left will not accept that solution, because it doesn't meet the goal of the Left, which is to undermine the US Culture, ripping it from its Judea-Christian mooring. But that is what nature creates civil war to solve.

.

.

.

Now with regard to spiritual healing...

I'm all for people seeking counseling prior to any long term commitment... as such comes with responsibilities that most citizens of the US today have been trained to reject, by the aforementioned advocacy of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle and for the reason stated.

My wife and I were guided toward counseling prior to marriage and told in no uncertain terms that we should not marry.

She the youngest of four children and the only girl... and me the oldest of three and the only son; we were told that our mutual egos would not be compatible once the RIDICULOUSLY hot sex faded. This from our own Pastor and one who had been close personal friends of my wife's family for decades... LOL! He literally told us that we represented the respective personification of 'the irresistible force and the immovable object' and that we had no chance to remain married and that we would make each other miserable.

That was well over 35 years ago.

And here we are, six near divorces and four children (three biological, one adopted) later... still at each others throats on a daily basis... and still very much in love.

Again... we've joined together; we're one.

We don't ask for anyone's permission for our union and we don't give a red rats ass who thinks what about it. And therein lies the distinction... between being rightly entitled and WANTING to be rightly entitled.

Where one is rightly entitled, they don't ask the government for permission, they don't ask their neighbors for permission, they don't ask the florist 'if they'll sell flowers', or the baker 'if they'll sell a cake'. They just do it... because: they're rightly entitled to do so.

Hi Where_r_my_Keys
My point is that the same way you had spelled out civil unions
was this the same legal options and process for both same sex and traditional couples?
As long as it is equal that is what the state can endorse if people agree the terms are written equally.

I see... and I agree that anyone can incorporate. Yes.

But not everyone should... just as not everyone should get married.

And isn't it wonderful that I; Republican and devotee to all that is Conservatism... and you a Democrat ... can both see the wisdom in that simple solution, where each and every would-be 'grievance' that the ANSA Cult has advanced, and which is axiomatically rejected, demonstrating that their 'would-be grievances' were profound deceits... and that their stated intentions were fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

So what's the difference between the ANSA Cult and us?

I submit that the distinction is, that you and I are honest brokers... reasonable people searching for a sound, sustainable solution.

Our mutual opposition, are not honest, they attack an institution which is deeply meaningful to people, with thousands of years of tradition and history, resting in unimpeachable, entirely natural, objectively reasoned principle... despite perfectly reasonable alternatives, meeting all of their professed goals... just so that can say 'they're member's too'.

That is wholly subjective, it's hateful, horrid and a manifestation of nothing short of old testament EVIL.

There is no attack on the institution of marriage. It requires a built in, prerequisite bigotry on your part to assume that same sex marriage harms anyone.

Homosexuals living together and loving each other does not bother me or any of my friends in the least. It's the redefinition of marriage that presents a problem. There is NO NEED to redefine it in order to grant equal benefits to same-sex couples. None whatsoever!

 

[emilynghiem]

Religious and civil marriage are also two completely different things. You should research the distinctions.

^ YES Seawytch here is where we agree. ^
The problem is that the religious marriage is NOT being fully separated out and kept private.

There is not an agreed understanding, unless it is by consensus to show all such issues were worked out.

Because this affects personal issues, there has to be an agreement with the people of each state,
to make sure they are all on the same page. This isn't being done.
The laws are being made by one side pushing it on the other.
So that's where either the wording, perception, or intent is crossing over into the religious marriage part.

So don't get me confused in with others, just because I defend their rights and beliefs. As I said, I support gay marriage; and my only issue is where marriage should be kept as the CIVIL contracts and not put personal issues through the state, like you also clarify. I AGREE.

As long as people of a state AGREE on how a law is written, sure, that means this Distinction HAS been made.

But as long as there are objections, and people feel their beliefs are NOT being respected and included
in their state laws, then something is OFF. Whichever side doesn't agree and argues they are left
out, I still defend them to be included equally. And to resolve the conflicts until BOTH sides are equally included.

 

[emilynghiem]

You wrote all this to defend gay marriage? That's amazing when one really thinks about what people are asking for today. The reason these problems didn't exist in the past, is because the things we are seeing today that are being asked for are simply weird in many peoples minds, even by today's standards. Now one can see that there is a conserted effort by those who have come together to fight for such things, but do they make up a majority opinion against those who want marriage left just as it is between a man & women? Now for those who want it to remain as is, then they are going to teach that anything other than that is just wrong right, and if they do that then will it be that they (the Christians along with their allies), will have to be defeated in their thinking eventually? Wrote for Skyler, but somehow it became separated from his post.

People felt about interracial marriage exactly the way you feel about gays marrying. A whole hell of a lot more people were opposed to interracial marriage when the SCOTUS ruled on it than are opposed to gays marrying today.

I'll tell you the same thing we told the racists...get over it.

^ WRONG Seawytch
there are people who HAVE changed orientation through voluntary therapy and spiritual healing
NO ONE I know has ever changed their race to something else through spiritual healing
Race and orientation are NOT "the same."
Race is genetic and Orientation is spiritual, cannot be proven and thus remains faith based.
So it cannot be mandated to recognize it by law, until it is proven as agreed upon by the public.

Both sides are equally faith based: that homosexuality is natural or unnatural, is a choice or not a choice. What I find is that there are ALL ranges and these are NOT "all one way."

So until either one is proven, they remain equal free choice and neither belief
can be mandated or discriminated against, as has been going on with both.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You wrote all this to defend gay marriage? That's amazing when one really thinks about what people are asking for today. The reason these problems didn't exist in the past, is because the things we are seeing today that are being asked for are simply weird in many peoples minds, even by today's standards. Now one can see that there is a conserted effort by those who have come together to fight for such things, but do they make up a majority opinion against those who want marriage left just as it is between a man & women? Now for those who want it to remain as is, then they are going to teach that anything other than that is just wrong right, and if they do that then will it be that they (the Christians along with their allies), will have to be defeated in their thinking eventually? Wrote for Skyler, but somehow it became separated from his post.

People felt about interracial marriage...

Interracial marriage? Where one man was joining with one woman?

Yeah that makes sense... the court decided that forbidding GENETIC RACE to be considered for licensing marriage, effectively authorized men to marry men in that same decision.

ROFLMNAO!

I wish you people were even REMOTELY CAPABLE of reason so you could enjoy the sense of just how hysterical that actually is.

I mean you're saying that because 2+2=4... Its not fair than 2+3 can't equal 4 also.

Using your reasoning, the professional sports is obligated under the 14th amendment to sign anyone who shows up for practice as a starter... .

Don't forget, the SAME idiots who are telling us that 'Gay Marriage doesn't hurt anyone' are the SAME ONES that told us that "EVERYONE DESERVES TO OWN THEIR OWN HOMES!"

The problem with Relativism, is that the truth becomes whatever the lowest common denominator says it is and
it doesn't take long before the international financial markets have crashed and your country is 6 years into a sustained stagnation, 9 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT added to the 9 trillion in debt accumulated over the previous 235 years... which has NO Connection to the Tens of TRILLIONS MORE than the Central Bank which they just MADE UP out of thin air... Your chief executive is effectively making law all by himself, deciding what laws he'll have the discretion to enforce and using his offices to execute his OWN orders, on what ammunition can be sold, what businesses will continue to be funded through long standing lines of credit... declaring that those he illegally encouraged to illegally cross the US Southern Border, can't be arrested and deported and will be getting subsidized financially by the Federal Government, get driver's licenses and register to vote in elections of public officers... and THAT is the GOOD NEWS!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Homosexuals living together and loving each other does not bother me or any of my friends in the least.

Doesn't bother anyone that I know... me included.

It's the redefinition of marriage that presents a problem. There is NO NEED to redefine it in order to grant equal benefits to same-sex couples. None whatsoever!

Just well said!

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Such is inappropriate for men who want to playhouse with other men, for those who demand to screw themselves financially by becoming legally obligated to their besty... they can simply form a corporation, assign themselves obligated to one another... then just wait for the penalty to kick in, before they do what they would have done in course... only without at least half of what they otherwise would have had, if they had not been so determined to have been equal.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: "A. If same sex marriage is in your church or community it affects that community"

Q-a: How? Be specific. If it's in your church, your church chose it.?

RE: "B. If same sex marriage is pushed nationally in public as a right everyone should recognize or you're considered a bigot, that affects the public, gay or straight"

Q-b: Again how and again be specific. Being called a bigot takes no rights, benefits or privileges from you. Racists, if they don't want to be called racist, learned to keep their racist thoughts to themselves. Anti gay bigots will too.

RE: "C If people get harassed or fined for not wanted to participate in a gay wedding that is affecting others"

Q-c: If you can't follow the local laws as it applies to business practices, don't go into business. Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding if they are not the ones marrying.

=================================
Thanks Seawytch
A-a. If YOUR church/community does or does not agree on same sex marriage,
that decision affects YOUR church/community. I'm saying that if you want to keep it private, keep it private.

If you go public and start pushing it on other people, not everyone shares your beliefs, so that's where it does affect others. When a group puts a cross on their own church property that is private; when a group puts a cross on PUBLIC property, Atheists have sued to remove it.

The arguments opposing removal said the SAME THING you did, that it 'isn't affecting you'
"nobody's forcing you". But the Atheist WINS the lawsuit by arguing it's on PUBLIC property.
it goes against or conflicts with the Atheist by IMPOSING beliefs. And it gets REMOVED.

So the same should be respected with same-sex marriage or traditional-only marriage or whatever. If it goes against someone's beliefs (yours, whoever's) then it should be REMOVED from PUBLIC institutions and remain Private. NOTE: I'm treating your beliefs equally as anyone else's beliefs for or again: if you "offend each other's beliefs" BOTH your beliefs should be REMOVED from public institutions and remain private. I treat the beliefs the same, and wish you would do the same.

A-b.
1. Calling people a Bigot, Faggot, or whatever is still HARASSMENT.
Sure you have free speech to call someone whatever. But when it becomes HATE SPEECH that is wrongful.
If it is harassing and wrongful to call derogatory names if someone is "naturally homosexual and cannot help it"
is it equally harassing and wrongful to call derogatory names is someone has religious beliefs and can't help it.

2. the same reasoning you are saying to keep your "racist thoughts to yourself" or keep your "anti-gay/bigot
thoughts to yourself" the same logic says for you to keep your "homosexual agenda to yourself"
Don't impose on others, and they won't impose on you.
NOTE: this also causes BACKLASH against gays to keep overpushing instead of remaining neutral; so it isn't helping the cause of equal rights but even HARMS it by fueling animosity and opposition

3. In case you didn't notice, when businesses, politicians, etc. are called Bigots in the media, this HARMS their reputation. This does have an effect, and cause damage, especially when it isn't FAIR to
call people names just because of their religious beliefs!

AGAIN -- BIG NOTE -- Race is not on the same level as Orientation. This needs to be addressed and resolved or you won't see any difference between whom you are calling racist or bigots. Orientation is determined on a spiritual level that needs to be resolved spiritually, and is different from race which is on a physical level.

A-c. False. Again you are underestimating how bad the reverse discrimination is.
One case was a photographer that isn't given a choice not to photograph a gay couple or wedding they
didn't feel comfortable with.

Seawytch be reasonable. Wouldn't you allow a photographer a choice whether to do a series on children or adults, on animals or sports. What about if a photographer doesn't want to shoot lingerie models, or porn, or same sex couples kissing? Is there anything wrong with picking a photographer who WANTS to do that work?
Forcing someone to photography a gay couple or wedding when they don't want to is unreasonable.

Sure, I agree with you NOBODY should be forced to participate in a gay wedding.
Just like NOBODY should be forced to attend a church if they don't want to go there.

Well, don't FORCE anyone to do photography or bake a cake for an event they don't feel comfortable with. Go find someone who WANTS that job.

Why force it one someone who doesn't want it? That doesn't make any sense.
If you are saying it doesn't impose on others, then make sure it doesn't!

 

[Syriusly]

Hello Emily...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And to be sure, I am not talking about banning marriage. I am advocating providing a legal means for people to group together, as one legal entity for any legal purpose, which has been done for centuries through incorporation. Where the new collective is legally recognized as one entity, rights and privileges established... with many configurations presently existing to accommodate numerous distinct purposes and where none of those configurations fit, redress the legislature to create one which does.

And this would provide legitimacy of the group, where marriage is inappropriate and given the mono-gender aspect of that particular deviancy and marriage being suited exclusively to the distinct genders, such is the school solution.

Naturally, the Left will not accept that solution, because it doesn't meet the goal of the Left, which is to undermine the US Culture, ripping it from its Judea-Christian mooring. But that is what nature creates civil war to solve.

.

.

.

Now with regard to spiritual healing...

I'm all for people seeking counseling prior to any long term commitment... as such comes with responsibilities that most citizens of the US today have been trained to reject, by the aforementioned advocacy of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle and for the reason stated.

My wife and I were guided toward counseling prior to marriage and told in no uncertain terms that we should not marry.

She the youngest of four children and the only girl... and me the oldest of three and the only son; we were told that our mutual egos would not be compatible once the RIDICULOUSLY hot sex faded. This from our own Pastor and one who had been close personal friends of my wife's family for decades... LOL! He literally told us that we represented the respective personification of 'the irresistible force and the immovable object' and that we had no chance to remain married and that we would make each other miserable.

That was well over 35 years ago.

And here we are, six near divorces and four children (three biological, one adopted) later... still at each others throats on a daily basis... and still very much in love.

Again... we've joined together; we're one.

We don't ask for anyone's permission for our union and we don't give a red rats ass who thinks what about it. And therein lies the distinction... between being rightly entitled and WANTING to be rightly entitled.

Where one is rightly entitled, they don't ask the government for permission, they don't ask their neighbors for permission, they don't ask the florist 'if they'll sell flowers', or the baker 'if they'll sell a cake'. They just do it... because: they're rightly entitled to do so.

Hi Where_r_my_Keys
My point is that the same way you had spelled out civil unions
was this the same legal options and process for both same sex and traditional couples?
As long as it is equal that is what the state can endorse if people agree the terms are written equally.

I see... and I agree that anyone can incorporate. Yes.

But not everyone should... just as not everyone should get married.

And isn't it wonderful that I; Republican and devotee to all that is Conservatism... and you a Democrat ... can both see the wisdom in that simple solution, where each and every would-be 'grievance' that the ANSA Cult has advanced, and which is axiomatically rejected, demonstrating that their 'would-be grievances' were profound deceits... and that their stated intentions were fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

So what's the difference between the ANSA Cult and us?

I submit that the distinction is, that you and I are honest brokers... reasonable people searching for a sound, sustainable solution.

Our mutual opposition, are not honest, they attack an institution which is deeply meaningful to people, with thousands of years of tradition and history, resting in unimpeachable, entirely natural, objectively reasoned principle... despite perfectly reasonable alternatives, meeting all of their professed goals... just so that can say 'they're member's too'.

That is wholly subjective, it's hateful, horrid and a manifestation of nothing short of old testament EVIL.

There is no attack on the institution of marriage. It requires a built in, prerequisite bigotry on your part to assume that same sex marriage harms anyone.

If same sex marriage has an effect on you, one or both of you is gay.

???
A. If same sex marriage is in your church or community it affects that community
B. If same sex marriage is pushed nationally in public as a right everyone should recognize or you're considered a bigot, that affects the public, gay or straight
C. If people get harassed or fined for not wanted to participate in a gay wedding that is affecting others

A- how? Why would you object if my church or community decided to have same sex marriage?
B- I have no idea what you mean- same sex marriage is national- 37 of 50 states, and the District of Columbia- how does that affect anyone that is not getting married to someone of the same gender?
C) No one is being forced to participate in a gay wedding- you will not be forced to marry another woman, nor will you be forced to attend any wedding you don't want to.

IF your state has public accommodation laws that forbid business's to discriminate based upon sexual orientation- then if your business involves weddings, you are required by law provide your services or goods regardless of the persons sexual orientation. If you don't like that- well that is an issue with your state's public accommodation laws.

 

[Syriusly]

Homosexuals living together and loving each other does not bother me or any of my friends in the least.

Doesn't bother anyone that I know... me included.

It's the redefinition of marriage that presents a problem. There is NO NEED to redefine it in order to grant equal benefits to same-sex couples. None whatsoever!

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
.

And in 37 states, and the District of Columbia and Canada and several other countries- marriage is also the joining of one person and one person.

 

[Syriusly]

You wrote all this to defend gay marriage? That's amazing when one really thinks about what people are asking for today. The reason these problems didn't exist in the past, is because the things we are seeing today that are being asked for are simply weird in many peoples minds, even by today's standards. Now one can see that there is a conserted effort by those who have come together to fight for such things, but do they make up a majority opinion against those who want marriage left just as it is between a man & women? Now for those who want it to remain as is, then they are going to teach that anything other than that is just wrong right, and if they do that then will it be that they (the Christians along with their allies), will have to be defeated in their thinking eventually? Wrote for Skyler, but somehow it became separated from his post.

People felt about interracial marriage exactly the way you feel about gays marrying. A whole hell of a lot more people were opposed to interracial marriage when the SCOTUS ruled on it than are opposed to gays marrying today.

I'll tell you the same thing we told the racists...get over it.

^ WRONG Seawytch
there are people who HAVE changed orientation through voluntary therapy and spiritual healing
NO ONE I know has ever changed their race to something else through spiritual healing
Race and orientation are NOT "the same."
Race is genetic and Orientation is spiritual, cannot be proven and thus remains faith based.
So it cannot be mandated to recognize it by law, until it is proven as agreed upon by the public.
.

Race and sexual orientation are not the same- any more than race and religion is the same or race and gender are the same.

But Public Accommodation laws that forbid discrimination based upon any of those criteria treat all of those exactly the same.

Faith healing has nothing to do with the law- or lack of law.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Syriusly!

A- how? Why would you object if my church or community decided to have same sex marriage?

A: I don't object, that's not what that point is referring to.
I am comparing the difference between keeping things private where you already have religious freedom to exercise your beliefs (any bans here are clearly Unconstitutional by religious freedom)
VERSUS
public policy where you cannot impose your beliefs on others.

If liberals want to suddenly go against all past arguments for 'separation of church and state'
here's your big chance. Sit down with the Parties and write out an agreement that if you INSIST on pushing gay marriage into the public sector as 'tolerance of diversity'
then religious people can push:
* crosses in public, Bibles, prayer, creation and all THEIR beliefs -- all these will be ALLOWED
as "diversity" and "tolerating differences"
* prolife legislation will no longer get blocks on the basis of imposing beliefs
* etc.
Just write out all the beliefs YOU want to push (right to health care, right to vote) uncontested,
and so will the other groups, and NEGOTIATE "what is an ACCEPTABLE belief to push in public"
and what is still on the NO GO list.
Great! Go for it. I applaud you all the way.
================================================

B- I have no idea what you mean- same sex marriage is national- 37 of 50 states, and the District of Columbia- how does that affect anyone that is not getting married to someone of the same gender?

you will not be forced to marry another woman, nor will you be forced to attend any wedding you don't want to.

IF your state has public accommodation laws that forbid business's to discriminate based upon sexual orientation- then if your business involves weddings, you are required by law provide your services or goods regardless of the persons sexual orientation. If you don't like that- well that is an issue with your state's public accommodation laws.

B 1 - if these "marriages" were kept secular as civil contracts only, as Seawytch and I both agree
are clearly within the bounds of the state, there would be no issue.
but because the "language and interpretation" is crossing the line with religious marriage,
this is causing the conflict. So these laws need to be agreed upon with each state to make
sure people AGREE they are neither imposing or denying equal beliefs about marriage.
They need to be written neutrally so there is no conflict in belief.

[For example, if someone says You can't use the term Under GOD because that is against my beliefs.
Then people could agree to substitute the concept "for the Public Good" and that wouldn't offend or exclude
anyone.]

B 2 - The examples I am arguing against EXCEED just public accommodations.

B 2 a - The case of a photographer who wasn't allowed the choice of what clients to photograph or not.
Can you force someone to photograph porn? Don't people have a choice to turn down subject matter or clients they don't feel comfortable photographing? Why would you want to make someone photograph your event if they didn't want to?

B 2 b - the baker who didn't want to attend the gay wedding to deliver the cake there.
There's nothing wrong with picking up the cake at the bakery. But trying to force someone to attend a gay wedding if this is against their beliefs, is like forcing a Muslim to eat pork or a Hindu to eat beef.
Why would you do that?

If you want people to respect your beliefs why wouldn't you respect theirs?

In general
C. I would recommend MEDIATION to prevent lawsuits and offenses going on due to difference in beliefs.
and if people can't respect each others' beliefs, stay away from each other. Sign agreements with businesses and customers to resolve conflicts by mediation and consensus to avoid legal costs or actions.
If people can't agree to resolve conflicts, then don't do business together. Regardless if the conflict is
Hindu vs. Muslim, or Republican vs. Democrat. if you can't resolve your issues and beliefs, don't get into contracts. Go find someone else who is compatible.

D. Beliefs about orientation are NOT the same as race.
Orientation is on a spiritual level, and this is faith based, whether people believe it is natural
or believe it is unnatural, or believe there are both types of cases going on and it is spiritual - we can't always tell.

So as long as it is faith based, nobody can impose their beliefs on anyone else, nor punish/harass anyone.
and cannot abuse govt to endorse or favor one view over another. or it causes backlash from the other
beliefs being discriminated against.

If one side wants to mandate and REQUIRE acceptance, why not let the other
side write up conditions on such a public mandate.
so if gay marriage is forced on others who don't agree, give them the option of mandating
that ALL couples go through spiritual healing to make sure they are truly natural and no unnatural abuses
are going on. Since marriage is a personal belief for people, write out what are the rules and regulations,
the conditions by which someone would accept gay marriage. And work out a mutual agreement if
you want the marriage laws to be public.

If they only agree to civil unions, then make this the same for ALL couples only to have civil unions.

 

[emilynghiem]

But Public Accommodation laws that forbid discrimination based upon any of those criteria treat all of those exactly the same.

Sure, if people AGREE that homosexuality falls under this; but many people believe it is a behavior that is unnatural and they don't believe in it.

Since this hasn't been proved to them otherwise, it is faith based.
Both views are faith based, so the govt cannot endorse one faith based belief over another.

Note: if people AGREE to drop their religious issues, and let marriage be open either way, that remains their CHOICE. it cannot be forced on them. Just like Atheists can CHOOSE not to sue over a Cross. But if they sue to remove it from public property, such lawsuits usually win.

1. If people AGREE to keep civil unions public (for ALL people equally), and keep "marriage" private (for ALL people equally), this can be resolved.

2. people might agree to drop the issue of gay marriage if secular liberals would agree to
allow crosses, Bibles, mention of God and Jesus, creation and prayer in public and agree not to
lobby against to ban those.

3. Other ways this could be resolved if marriage is to remain public policy and must accommodate all beliefs:

You can treat all people the same by requiring all couples to go through spiritual healing
to prove their marriage is natural and not against the religion of others.
This would be treating all people the same (no gays, no adulterers who are not natural partners
and should not be marrying, anyone who isn't spiritually naturally)

4: RE: Faith healing has nothing to do with the law- or lack of law.
Faith healing usually refers to fraudulent types of practices that don't work except by chance.

Spiritual healing refers to the natural voluntary therapy based on forgiveness of past conditions
which HAS been used effectively.

Please see article I posted on other threads where Spiritual Healing is used to help people who want to change their homosexual lifestyle.
How To Defeat Homosexual Activists 101 A Real Education Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
This shows it is a spiritual condition, that can change in some people, and is faith-based. so that's why it should remain a free choice and not be forced into public laws.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Syriusly and Seawytch
I hope you understand that my viewpoint as a liberal prochoice Democrat
is sympathetic and supportive of gay people, relations and beliefs about these having the same
respect and protection as any others.

So in asking for equal treatment, if people DON'T agree in their beliefs,
I am asking to keep that OUT of public policy until and unless an agreement is reached
on how to write and implement laws in question.

My question to you is how is it
FORCING Atheists to do anything if a Cross is on public property?
If a prayer is said and some atheist group or religious freedom group from across the
country SUES to remove that cross or stop that prayer that isn't affecting them directly,
but they are doing so ON PRINCIPLE. Because of a BELIEF that they don't hold or which is
PERCEIVED to be against theirs (in truth Christianity does include secular gentiles
and doesn't reject them but this isn't proven yet and thus remains faith based).

So why isn't the conflicting BELIEF enough to respect the BELIEFS of others
and not impose gay marriage in public, but keep it private if these same
arguments are used by Atheists who aren't being FORCED to do anything either.

Just the nature of the BELIEF implemented through a public institution
is enough to argue for REMOVAL.

Why aren't those cases treated the same as gay marriage?

And NOTE: I agree that laws and treatment can be made equal
and include people equally regardless of beliefs. I am just pointing
out that right now, the laws AREN'T agreed upon, like the Atheist
who DOESN'T agree to the cross on public property and sues to remove it.
if the Atheist AGREES it causes no harm, it can remain. Nobody has to sue
if they all AGREE. And same with people who don't really agree with gay marriage
but might be willing to drop it, if there was an AGREEMENT
to drop lawsuits over crosses, prayer, Bibles and other things that cause NO HARM.

Why can't these be treated the same?

 

[Syriusly]

Hi Syriusly!

A- how? Why would you object if my church or community decided to have same sex marriage?

A: I don't object, that's not what that point is referring to.
I am comparing the difference between keeping things private where you already have religious freedom to exercise your beliefs (any bans here are clearly Unconstitutional by religious freedom)
VERSUS
public policy where you cannot impose your beliefs on others.

If liberals want to suddenly go against all past arguments for 'separation of church and state'
here's your big chance. Sit down with the Parties and write out an agreement that if you INSIST on pushing gay marriage into the public sector as 'tolerance of diversity'.

In 37 of 50 states, gay couples are issued the exact same kind of marriage license as my wife and I were issued- that has nothing to do with separation of state- or religion at all. It is a fact.

And I think that is a good thing.