Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[Seawytch]

LOL! This is why you guys will never understand anything about the rights of others except at the business end of a loaded gun. Eventually, you're boot will have to be forcibly removed from the premises of others' rights, tough guy, as far too many of you can't even grasp the fact that your boot is on the rights of others. Because you're morally bankrupt, you're stupid beyond repair, but for the grace of God. This is the essence of the reprobate mind. Relativism. You understand nothing.

I don't claim any such thing, Seawytch. All American citizens are entitled to have their rights protected by the state, equally and universally. What are you talking about when you say that the rights of homosexuals are only protected in "some places"? Aside from the "marital rights" you think they're entitled to under the current system of state-regulated marriage, as opposed to it being a private affair, what rights of the homosexual are not being upheld in some places? And why do you believe the rights of Christians are protected everywhere?

Humor me. Explain it to me as if you were talking to a child.

You seem to be confusing issues. I never said Public Accommodation was a a right. It is however a fact. Public Accommodation laws exist and in some states and cities these laws that protect people from discrimination regardless of race, religion, country of origin, etc. also protect gays and lesbians.

Federal Public Accommodation laws protect religion, but not sexual orientation. A Christian can refuse to serve me, but I can't refuse to serve them.

Is that simple enough for your child-like brain?

 

[Seawytch]

Yep. And in fact, public accommodation laws for religion have the potential of being problematical too.

And yet nobody is trying to repeal them are they? Nope...you only recently began hearing about how terrible PA laws are when they started protecting gays from discrimination.

These "problematic" laws have been on the books since the 60s.

 

[JoeB131]

[


Homosexuals are not being denied any civil right. Therefore there is no contest. What the sexually abnormal are seeking is the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage. What they do not understand is that where homosexuals would be 'married' would be a place where there is no legitimacy in marriage. This is because homosexuality is illegitimate. A certainty, due to the entire foundation of the Advocacy to Normalize Abnormal Sexuality is comprised of the absurdity that behavior which DIAMETRICALLY deviates from the sexuality standard, does not deviate from the standard. From that fraudulence, there is no potential for legitimacy.
.

I would argue marriage itself is sexually abnormal. Most creatures in the animal kingdom don't practice monogamy, and only ours makes a big ceremony out of it. A lot of species practice homosexuality or bisexuality.

For the institution of human marriage, the concept of both partners being equals is a relatively new one. For most of Western history, a woman was considered more property than person. Beating a unruly spouse was considered acceptable.

So let's call it what it is, you using religion to rationalize your sexual insecurities.

 

[Seawytch]

Actually here is a reasonable solution:

1. Provide under the law that for Same-sex Civil Marriage recognized by government entities.

2. Repeal Public Accommodation laws and provide that business owners have rights of property and free association, they are able to refuse service to anyone they want - for any reason. Each business however is required to post in a prominent place and as part of all advertisements a statement of public access. If they don't want to serve n******, or Jews, or Chinks, or Spicts, or gays, or Camel Jockeys, or Gays - no problem. They must however notify (in advance) the public of such a policy.​

It's a win-win. Homosexuals get equal treatment under the law, and business owners get to deny service to groups they don't like.



>>>>

Sounds great. Step 1 is already well on it's way. Step 2 however is nothing more than a dream at this point...unless you can get the SCOTUS to rule all PA laws unconstitutional. Likeliness?

 

[Seawytch]

This is reasonable but it fails because you misdiagnose what's really going on. If you look at the actual homosexual marriage statistics you see that it's not really all that popular with homosexuals. They're not marrying at anywhere near a proportionate rate to heterosexuals.

This effort is about normalizing homosexuality.

So allowing people to choose their associations also allows some people to see and treat homosexuals as abnormal. So the tit-for-tat arrangement where homosexuals get civil marriage is DOA because that's not what they really want.

Can you provide statistics to support your claim? Keep in mind that gays can only marry in 18 states plus the District of Columbia so be sure to adjust for that.

Yes, civil marriage is exactly what we really want.

And we really want equality. If I must serve a Christian because they are a Federal Protected class, covered under PA laws in all 50 states, then the Christian must in turn have to serve me. I'm all for ending all PA laws. Great idea, call your legislator...but until all PA laws are repealed, get over the fact that gays are included in them in some places.

 

[Seawytch]

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it.
​

The Southern Argument for Slavery

Bible passages used to justify slavery:

Psalm 123:2 (New International Version (NIV)): As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:4-6: Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22:Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1:Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

Titus 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.​

You can't rewrite history because it's inconvenient. Christians were on both sides of the slavery and anti miscegenation issue and the bible was used to justify the pro slavery and pro segregation argument.

 

[bodecea]

Actually here is a reasonable solution:

1. Provide under the law that for Same-sex Civil Marriage recognized by government entities.

2. Repeal Public Accommodation laws and provide that business owners have rights of property and free association, they are able to refuse service to anyone they want - for any reason. Each business however is required to post in a prominent place and as part of all advertisements a statement of public access. If they don't want to serve n******, or Jews, or Chinks, or Spicts, or gays, or Camel Jockeys, or Gays - no problem. They must however notify (in advance) the public of such a policy.​

It's a win-win. Homosexuals get equal treatment under the law, and business owners get to deny service to groups they don't like.



>>>>

Sounds great. Step 1 is already well on it's way. Step 2 however is nothing more than a dream at this point...unless you can get the SCOTUS to rule all PA laws unconstitutional. Likeliness?

Step 2 is about as likely to happen as getting government out of marriage.....another complaint some on the Right have.....that they are not taking any ACTIVE steps to do something about.

 

[bodecea]

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it.
​

The Southern Argument for Slavery

Bible passages used to justify slavery:

Psalm 123:2 (New International Version (NIV)): As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:4-6: Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22:Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1:Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

Titus 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.​

You can't rewrite history because it's inconvenient. Christians were on both sides of the slavery and anti miscegenation issue and the bible was used to justify the pro slavery and pro segregation argument.

He will deny all that, you know.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I talk to Lefty the way I do because the smarter ones, for example, known they're trampling on INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS, and they are utterly indifferent to the monetary costs, the stress and the disruption their actions wrought on the lives of families, decent people trying to live their lives in peace. Businesses have been destroyed. Livelihoods ruined. Dreams, years of work and sacrifice, wiped out. Right now in San Francisco, churches are being invaded and vandalized by you know who. The victims. Christians have been assaulted on the public streets and sidewalks by the same. With impunity. The MSM ignores these stories.

Yet again, at least the third time: I actually AGREE with you on this!

When we conservatives/libertarians read stories about homosexuals being brutalized by thugs, friggin' animals, do we react with indifference? Of course not! We are outraged by such assaults on civilization, heart broken for the savagery endured by a human being. Any decent and sane human being would be.

Of course.

What? You think I'm one of "them" who wouldn't be?

Actually, I suspect you would cheer.

Bingo! You know that sound you hear when you suddenly stop the LP from spinning on the turn table while the needle's still down? That's the sound you just made. Crazy mixed with *startle*

The rest of your post is more of the same creepy "Report-Me-To-The-F.B.I.-and-Scour-My-Hard-Drive-for-Porn."

Dude. Seriously. Good bye. Have a nice life.

What drugs would I have to take in order to make sense out of this word salad?

 

[Seawytch]

Step 2 is about as likely to happen as getting government out of marriage.....another complaint some on the Right have.....that they are not taking any ACTIVE steps to do something about.

And they didn't care to do either...until the gays wanted in on 'em.

 

[Redfish]

Civil unions for all couples. Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church. A civil union of two men or two women is not, can not, and will never be, a marriage.

Equality does not require the use of the word 'marriage'.

But, lest we forget, the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle considered deviant by a majority of the people of the world.

 

[bodecea]

Civil unions for all couples. Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church. A civil union of two men or two women is not, can not, and will never be, a marriage.

Equality does not require the use of the word 'marriage'.

But, lest we forget, the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle considered deviant by a majority of the people of the world.

That's fine...and that was tried in several states within the last 10 years but it was the Religious Right that shoot such things down. Besides, many religions already marry gay couples. We were married via religious service long before we were legally married.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Provide under the law that for Same-sex Civil Marriage recognized by government entities.


This is moot, as it's currently in place.


There is no such thing as 'civil marriage,' there is only one marriage contract law written by the state legislatures and administered by state courts; marriage law is identical for both same- and opposite-sex couples, whether married by a member of the clergy or by a judge.


Moreover, because 14th Amendment jurisprudence is applicable only to state and local governments, not private entities such as churches, there's no need to use the term 'civil marriage' in an effort to distinguish it from 'religious marriage.'


Repeal Public Accommodation laws and provide that business owners have rights of property and free association, they are able to refuse service to anyone they want - for any reason.


Disagree.


Public accommodations laws are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence; they are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures intended to ensure local markets remain stable and viable, where to allow business owners to discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual orientation would indeed be disruptive to local markets and in turn disruptive to markets overall, as all markets are interrelated (see: Wickard v. Filburn (1942)). Public accommodations laws are appropriate, desirable, and are no more burdensome than any other regulatory measure businesses are subject to.


Last, state and local communities are at liberty to enact public accommodations laws to reflect their values, values such as ensuring that no member of the community be subject to discrimination and humiliation by being publicly disallowed to enter a business establishment solely as a consequence of who they are – this should be repugnant to all Americans, because we as a people are better than this.

 

[Seawytch]

Civil unions for all couples. Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church. A civil union of two men or two women is not, can not, and will never be, a marriage.

Equality does not require the use of the word 'marriage'.

But, lest we forget, the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle considered deviant by a majority of the people of the world.

We sanctify in churches too...have been for decades. We already have equal access to religious marriage.

Nice to see you come around to civil unions for all. Bravo Zulu!

Let's do it!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Civil unions for all couples.

I'm onboard with that.

Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church.

You realize that Churches have been marrying same-sex couples for decades right? So if "marriage" is determined by being joined by a religious institutiion, those couple are just as "married" as you in they eyes of that institution.


>>>>

 

[Redfish]

Civil unions for all couples. Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church. A civil union of two men or two women is not, can not, and will never be, a marriage.

Equality does not require the use of the word 'marriage'.

But, lest we forget, the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle considered deviant by a majority of the people of the world.

That's fine...and that was tried in several states within the last 10 years but it was the Religious Right that shoot such things down. Besides, many religions already marry gay couples. We were married via religious service long before we were legally married.

That doesn't make it right. You have an illness, your genes are screwed up. Its not your fault. Society understands that.

 

[Redfish]

Civil unions for all couples.

I'm onboard with that.

Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church.

You realize that Churches have been marrying same-sex couples for decades right? So if "marriage" is determined by being joined by a religious institutiion, those couple are just as "married" as you in they eyes of that institution.


>>>>

for 'decades' ? which ones? making stuff up doesn't help your case.

 

[Seawytch]

for 'decades' ? which ones? making stuff up doesn't help your case.

I watched a lesbian couple get married in a Southern Baptist Church in San Francisco in 1985. Neither blood family attended I'm sad to say. Good thing they had their adopted family around them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Civil unions for all couples.

I'm onboard with that.

Marriage for those man/woman couples who choose to sanctify their union in a church.

You realize that Churches have been marrying same-sex couples for decades right? So if "marriage" is determined by being joined by a religious institutiion, those couple are just as "married" as you in they eyes of that institution.


>>>>

for 'decades' ? which ones? making stuff up doesn't help your case.

1969
Metropolitan Community Church

"The Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), also known as the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (UFMCC), is an international Protestant Christian denomination. There are 222 member congregations in 37 countries, and the Fellowship has a specific outreach to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families and communities.[1]"

Metropolitan Community Church - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Gays and Lesbian's have been getting religiously married in every state in the Union for a long, long time.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

The Metropolitan Community Church was founded in 1968.