Do You Support LGBT Or Not?

[Syriusly]

mdk, admit your side is using Stalinist and/or McCarthyite tactics to destroy people who oppose you on same-sex marriage. Admit it, and then at least I will know you are an honest man.

LOL

Admit your side regularly uses Stalinist tactics to destroy people who are homosexuals- or support homosexuals- and has done so for years- even passing laws to put people in jail based upon what gender someone has sex with.

Admit that whatever tactics the LGBT community may be using- Christians were using the same tactics long before they were doing so- and Christians only cry foul when less extreme tactics are used against them.

 

[Syriusly]

Oberfell, like Roe v. Wade, was an example of the United States Supreme Court raping/defiling the American Constitution, then kicking it to the curb like yesterday's used garbage. It was an illegitimate decision, not based on the actual text of the Constitution, and it will never be considered legitimate by the opponents of same-sex marriage, just like Roe v. Wade will never be considered legitimate by pro-lifers.

Nobody cares if you consider their marriages legitimate or not.

Yes, you do care. You care very much. That is why you fought so hard for the word "marriage" when you could have had civil unions. .

Who could have had 'civil unions'? Not the citizens of Georgia or many other states- where good 'Christians' like yourself specifically changed the law to ensure that gays not only could not have civil unions in those states, but that the state would not even recognize such civil unions performed outside of the state.

With the Stalinist tactics of your side, the recourse the LGBT community had was to go to court for their right to marriage- because no one has a right to a 'civil union'-but just like my wife and I, gays have a right to marry also.

 

[mdk]

Oberfell, like Roe v. Wade, was an example of the United States Supreme Court raping/defiling the American Constitution, then kicking it to the curb like yesterday's used garbage. It was an illegitimate decision, not based on the actual text of the Constitution, and it will never be considered legitimate by the opponents of same-sex marriage, just like Roe v. Wade will never be considered legitimate by pro-lifers.

Nobody cares if you consider their marriages legitimate or not.

Yes, you do care. You care very much. That is why you fought so hard for the word "marriage" when you could have had civil unions. That is why you are putting wedding cake bakers in prison for refusing to bake you wedding cakes at your same-sex wedding ceremonies.

I am Catholic, and the Catholic Church will never officiate a same-sex marriage. You cannot force that to happen, and when you try, you will have to put Catholic priests in prison. And I know your side is going to do that, because you're so desperate for approval that you're willing to put an innocent wedding cake baker in prison for refusing to bake you a cake. So you will do the same to Catholic priests.

No, I really don't care. Your opinion on whether my marriage is legitimate or not doesn't matter in the least. The ship concerning civil unions sailed when social conservatives in a handful of states banned them and refused their recognize them performed in other states. Civil unions were far too close to marriage for their comfort. Only when it became obvious that they were losing did they rush to support civil unions.

Churches are free to marry, or not marry, any couple they see fit. Good thing not a single church has been forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes. Nor should they be.

I am putting bakers in prisons?! lol. An odd accusation to say the least. By the way, I am opposed to all public accommodations laws and I have stated that on numerous occasions. Perhaps you should actually know my positions before you make up a bunch of bullshit and rail aganist it. I know I am asking a leopards to change its spots, but I am an eternal optimist. lol

 

[Syriusly]

Oberfell, like Roe v. Wade, was an example of the United States Supreme Court raping/defiling the American Constitution, then kicking it to the curb like yesterday's used garbage. It was an illegitimate decision, not based on the actual text of the Constitution, and it will never be considered legitimate by the opponents of same-sex marriage, just like Roe v. Wade will never be considered legitimate by pro-lifers.

Yep- just like your kind will never consider Loving v. Virginia legitimate.

 

[Syriusly]

Could you add one. "Don't give a shyt?"

No, because the Church of LGBT demands that you care very much about all their components.

Where is this "Church of LGBT" and has it demanded Christians be incarcerated like Christian Churches have demanded that homosexuals be incarcerated?

 

[Blackrook]

When you tell me you are personally opposed to something that the LGBT movement is doing in your name it really does nothing to win your argument. The fact is, bakers ARE being hit with huge life-savings destroying fines for refusing to put two plastic little men or two plastic little women on a wedding cake. The fact that you don't personally support that effort of your fellow LGBT makes no difference at all, I have never seen you here denouncing these tactics or urging your fellow LGBT to show restraint in oppressing Christians who have religious objections to participating in a wedding ceremony they don't believe is legitimate. I know you would not urge such restraint, because then your fellow LGBT, including possibly your husband, would turn on you like wild wolves and take you down.

 

[Syriusly]

When you tell me you are personally opposed to something that the LGBT movement is doing in your name it really does nothing to win your argument. The fact is, bakers ARE being hit with huge life-savings destroying fines for refusing to put two plastic little men or two plastic little women on a wedding cake. The fact that you don't personally support that effort of your fellow LGBT makes no difference at all, I have never seen you here denouncing these tactics or urging your fellow LGBT to show restraint in oppressing Christians who have religious objections to participating in a wedding ceremony they don't believe is legitimate. I know you would not urge such restraint, because then your fellow LGBT, including possibly your husband, would turn on you like wild wolves and take you down.

And I have never seen you denouncing laws, supported by Christian conservatives, which make homosexual sex illegal.

Laws which could put a man in prison- if it was not for a Supreme Court ruling that prevents such laws from being enforced.

I have not seen you denouncing those Christian advocates who have called for the boycott of business's in order to get gay spokespersons fired, or for being seen as being too 'gay friendly'.

Nor have I seen you calling for the end of the very same laws which make it equally illegal for a bakery to discriminate against Christians.

All I see is that you believe that Christian bakers somehow should be exempt from the law that every other business is required to follow.

 

[Syriusly]

yes unless we are talking about special rights and shit
actual equality? absolutely

Special rights....you mean like the right for gays to marry w)

Bob and Bill have the same right to marry as my wife and I have to marry.

Since when is treatment that is exactly equal to what heterosexual couples have become 'special treatment'?

Or are you saying that my wife and I get 'special treatment' ?

 

[mdk]

When you tell me you are personally opposed to something that the LGBT movement is doing in your name it really does nothing to win your argument. The fact is, bakers ARE being hit with huge life-savings destroying fines for refusing to put two plastic little men or two plastic little women on a wedding cake. The fact that you don't personally support that effort of your fellow LGBT makes no difference at all, I have never seen you here denouncing these tactics or urging your fellow LGBT to show restraint in oppressing Christians who have religious objections to participating in a wedding ceremony they don't believe is legitimate. I know you would not urge such restraint, because then your fellow LGBT, including possibly your husband, would turn on you like wild wolves and take you down.

This is an incredibly lame attempt to save face, even for you. You made up a bunch of nonsense about me and railed aganist it without actually knowing my positions. You could a quick search find out all about my positions concerning public accommodation laws. It isn't a secret. I suppose just making shit up as you go along is much easier, though.

 

[Blackrook]

When you tell me you are personally opposed to something that the LGBT movement is doing in your name it really does nothing to win your argument. The fact is, bakers ARE being hit with huge life-savings destroying fines for refusing to put two plastic little men or two plastic little women on a wedding cake. The fact that you don't personally support that effort of your fellow LGBT makes no difference at all, I have never seen you here denouncing these tactics or urging your fellow LGBT to show restraint in oppressing Christians who have religious objections to participating in a wedding ceremony they don't believe is legitimate. I know you would not urge such restraint, because then your fellow LGBT, including possibly your husband, would turn on you like wild wolves and take you down.

This is an incredibly lame attempt to save face, even for you. You made up a bunch of nonsense about me and railed aganist it without actually knowing my positions. You could a quick search find out all about my positions concerning public accommodation laws. It isn't a secret. I suppose just making shit up as you go along is much easier, though.

Public accommodation laws date back to the Civil Rights era, and were added to by the Americans with Disabilities Act. It does not matter what you personally think, the federal government is not going to repeal these laws and allow businesses to go back to discriminating against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities and handicapped people in their public accommodations.

Taking the position that you are opposed to ALL public accommodation laws is intellectually dishonest, because you don't really want to see a return to the days when hotels could refuse service to blacks, Mexicans, and Jews. If you really believe that, you are a libertarian extremist, so please make that clear if that is really your position. But I wouldn't believe it even if you said it, because even libertarians don't really believe it, despite what they say.

 

[mdk]

When you tell me you are personally opposed to something that the LGBT movement is doing in your name it really does nothing to win your argument. The fact is, bakers ARE being hit with huge life-savings destroying fines for refusing to put two plastic little men or two plastic little women on a wedding cake. The fact that you don't personally support that effort of your fellow LGBT makes no difference at all, I have never seen you here denouncing these tactics or urging your fellow LGBT to show restraint in oppressing Christians who have religious objections to participating in a wedding ceremony they don't believe is legitimate. I know you would not urge such restraint, because then your fellow LGBT, including possibly your husband, would turn on you like wild wolves and take you down.

This is an incredibly lame attempt to save face, even for you. You made up a bunch of nonsense about me and railed aganist it without actually knowing my positions. You could a quick search find out all about my positions concerning public accommodation laws. It isn't a secret. I suppose just making shit up as you go along is much easier, though.

Public accommodation laws date back to the Civil Rights era, and were added to by the Americans with Disabilities Act. It does not matter what you personally think, the federal government is not going to repeal these laws and allow businesses to go back to discriminating against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities and handicapped people in their public accommodations.

Taking the position that you are opposed to ALL public accommodation laws is intellectually dishonest, because you don't really want to see a return to the days when hotels could refuse service to blacks, Mexicans, and Jews. If you really believe that, you are a libertarian extremist, so please make that clear if that is really your position. But I wouldn't believe it even if you said it, because even libertarians don't really believe it, despite what they say.

Exactly. It doesn't matter what I say b/c you'll only believe whatever fits your narrative about me.

 

[aris2chat]

Oberfell, like Roe v. Wade, was an example of the United States Supreme Court raping/defiling the American Constitution, then kicking it to the curb like yesterday's used garbage. It was an illegitimate decision, not based on the actual text of the Constitution, and it will never be considered legitimate by the opponents of same-sex marriage, just like Roe v. Wade will never be considered legitimate by pro-lifers.

Nobody cares if you consider their marriages legitimate or not.

Yes, you do care. You care very much. That is why you fought so hard for the word "marriage" when you could have had civil unions. That is why you are putting wedding cake bakers out of business for refusing to bake you wedding cakes at your same-sex wedding ceremonies.

I am Catholic, and the Catholic Church will never officiate a same-sex marriage. You cannot force that to happen, and when you try, you will have to put Catholic priests in prison. And I know your side is going to do that, because you're so desperate for approval that you're willing to put an innocent wedding cake baker out of business for refusing to bake you a cake. So you will put Catholic priests in prison. This has happened many times before in the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church, priests going to prison.

Marriage in matter of legality not religion. All marriage have to get licenses but not all marriages have to be religious unions. Not a matter for you or your faith to define, it is an agreement between two people to be partners in life.

Births, deaths, divorce, contracts, don't require church recognition, nor does marriage. A justice, notary of even a friend can officiate a marriage. Other faiths, mixed religions, no religions, you don't get to decide who can marry in the country.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage in matter of legality not religion. All marriage have to get licenses but not all marriages have to be religious unions. Not a matter for you or your faith to define, it is an agreement between two people to be partners in life.

Births, deaths, divorce, contracts, don't require church recognition, nor does marriage. A justice, notary of even a friend can officiate a marriage. Other faiths, mixed religions, no religions, you don't get to decide who can marry in the country.

Pray tell, when mother and father are no longer sacred, what makes the number "two" special and protected? Is it because the majority wants just two people marrying? Remember, the majority wanted a mother and father both for children in marriage. Yet that was ignored.

Because the second line I highlighted would paint you to be a hypocrite in the first, considering that there still are many people who cannot marry the ones they love... You've heard of polyamorists, yes? AKA "polygamy marriage". You've heard of the 14th Amendment I assume...and not playing favorites when it comes to equality and all that, right?

 

[Silhouette]

Yep- just like your kind will never consider Loving v. Virginia legitimate.

What on earth does a race of people, still providing mother and father to children, have to do with gay sex behaviors divorcing children from either a mother or father for life? ("gay marriage"). The two concepts couldn't be further apart.

 

[Syriusly]

Yep- just like your kind will never consider Loving v. Virginia legitimate.

What on earth does a race of people, s

Your kind wants to discriminate against gay couples the same way the supporters of bans on mixed race couples marrying wanted to discriminate against them- both of you piously calling "Think of the children"!

Same bigotry....just different decades.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage in matter of legality not religion. All marriage have to get licenses but not all marriages have to be religious unions. Not a matter for you or your faith to define, it is an agreement between two people to be partners in life.

Births, deaths, divorce, contracts, don't require church recognition, nor does marriage. A justice, notary of even a friend can officiate a marriage. Other faiths, mixed religions, no religions, you don't get to decide who can marry in the country.

Pray tell, when mother and father are no longer sacred, what makes the number "two" special and protected??

Mothers and fathers divorce each other all the time. If the mother and father were 'sacred' in marriage the state would not allow married parents to divorce.

And please don't lie to us about the State only allowing divorce in extremes- almost every state offers no-fault divorce, where the divorce itself is not conditional on the needs of children at all.

 

[Silhouette]

Your kind wants to discriminate against gay couples the same way the supporters of bans on mixed race couples marrying wanted to discriminate against them- both of you piously calling "Think of the children"!

Same bigotry....just different decades.

"Your kind" eh? You mean like people with a differing opinion on deviant sex behaviors? You sound bigoted. Are you a free-speech hater?

BTW, children of divorce get special handling in the legal proceedings to insure they stay in contact with BOTH their mother and father... until such time as either or both remarry. Gay marriage in contrast even in the best of days, by physical defect, bifurcates children from even the hope of either a mother or father at any time, for LIFE....

 

[Blackrook]

When you tell me you are personally opposed to something that the LGBT movement is doing in your name it really does nothing to win your argument. The fact is, bakers ARE being hit with huge life-savings destroying fines for refusing to put two plastic little men or two plastic little women on a wedding cake. The fact that you don't personally support that effort of your fellow LGBT makes no difference at all, I have never seen you here denouncing these tactics or urging your fellow LGBT to show restraint in oppressing Christians who have religious objections to participating in a wedding ceremony they don't believe is legitimate. I know you would not urge such restraint, because then your fellow LGBT, including possibly your husband, would turn on you like wild wolves and take you down.

This is an incredibly lame attempt to save face, even for you. You made up a bunch of nonsense about me and railed aganist it without actually knowing my positions. You could a quick search find out all about my positions concerning public accommodation laws. It isn't a secret. I suppose just making shit up as you go along is much easier, though.

Public accommodation laws date back to the Civil Rights era, and were added to by the Americans with Disabilities Act. It does not matter what you personally think, the federal government is not going to repeal these laws and allow businesses to go back to discriminating against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities and handicapped people in their public accommodations.

Taking the position that you are opposed to ALL public accommodation laws is intellectually dishonest, because you don't really want to see a return to the days when hotels could refuse service to blacks, Mexicans, and Jews. If you really believe that, you are a libertarian extremist, so please make that clear if that is really your position. But I wouldn't believe it even if you said it, because even libertarians don't really believe it, despite what they say.

Exactly. It doesn't matter what I say b/c you'll only believe whatever fits your narrative about me.

OK, then say it. Say you want to repeal the Civil Rights era laws and go back to the days when blacks could be refused service at lunch counters.

Say it.

 

[Syriusly]

Your kind wants to discriminate against gay couples the same way the supporters of bans on mixed race couples marrying wanted to discriminate against them- both of you piously calling "Think of the children"!

Same bigotry....just different decades.

"Your kind" eh? You mean like people.

I mean 'your kind'- bigots who want to deny marriage to couples because you don't approve of who they are marrying- either because of their gender or their race.

 

[Syriusly]

Oberfell, like Roe v. Wade, was an example of the United States Supreme Court raping/defiling the American Constitution, then kicking it to the curb like yesterday's used garbage. It was an illegitimate decision, not based on the actual text of the Constitution, and it will never be considered legitimate by the opponents of same-sex marriage, just like Roe v. Wade will never be considered legitimate by pro-lifers.

Nobody cares if you consider their marriages legitimate or not.

I am Catholic, and the Catholic Church will never officiate a same-sex marriage. You cannot force that to happen.

And no one is trying.

No more than anyone is trying to make force the Catholic Church to officiate the marriage of Jews or make women priests.

Despite what fear mongers like yourself try to conjure up.