If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Seawytch]

As far as gay marriage, Individuals have the right of freedom of association without coercion. This is fundamental. Why do you want license? All that's doing is telling the government you aren't capable of running a houshold and managing a marriage/family without government oversight. People don't often think about the meaning of government license for what it actually is. They should.

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

no it wasn't. it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists, can't stand your sorry asses.

I still stand with Dr. Thomas Sowell on this subject, and say that marriage is not some goody box of gifts and bennies from the government, and anyone who thinks it is either is terminally stupid, or is REALLY not doing marriage correctly.

So you only got married in a church? You don't file joint taxes or get those insurance discounts? Not going to take his SS if he goes first?

Like I said, if you really think, "Gosh, married people have so many advantages over single people 'cause of joint income tax filing and Social Security survivor benefits", you're a moron, and/or you are seriously ignorant about what marriage ACTUALLY is and what it's for. I've been saying this pretty much from the beginning of homosexuals saying, "We have to have legal marital sanction so that we're getting in on the goodies!"

Dr. Sowell wrote this back in 2005, but leaving aside the dated current event references, the underlying principles are still correct:

Gay Marriage 'Rights' Are Nonsensical | Human Events

Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

He wrote this in 2006:

Thomas Sowell - Gay "marriage"

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

This is the standpoint with which I was agreeing earlier: from a legal standpoint, marriage is not an expansion of rights, a smorgasbord of extra goodies to which only married people are entitled; it is a restriction, legally speaking, and all those "benefits" people keep yammering on about are really just a legal recognition of that.

You didn’t answer the question. Did you only marry in a church or did you get the state issued marriage license? Gays had been marrying for decades without the goodies you straight folks got.

 

[Seawytch]

Both are. My wife and I were both brides. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you. Do you hurt yourself with plastic spoons?

Fertility is not an issue when the two parties cannot mate.

Sorry, thought you would have known that.

Fertility has nothing to do with civil marriage. Sorry, thought you would have known that.

I never said it did, now did I. What I DID SAY is that you want a secular version of Marriage with the Religious and Traditional overtones. Unbelievable and Hypocritical.

Says who? Everyone, religious and secular, pretty much observes the same wedding traditions. That’s why they are traditions. They aren’t Christian for shit sake, they’re pagan.

I hate to break into your ranting about the history of wedding cakes, but I feel the need to point out that it really doesn't matter WHERE the tradition came from.

If someone doesn't want to be involved in your wedding plans, there is no argument or rationale that's going to make it any less of a dick move to try to force them to. Just go find someone who DOES want to associate with you, and get on with your damned life.

Baking a cake does not involve the baker in the wedding. The hotel a child is conceived in does not involve the hotel in the family.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There's no such thing as "my truth" or "your truth". Truth and fact just are. That's kinda the definition. God exists, or He does not, and neither my belief or your disbelief will alter it one way or the other.

Look at it this way: the existence of Pluto (the planet, not the Disney dog) was completely unknown for a long time, and then it was suspected and posited and theorized long before any definitive proof existed. And there were a lot of people who disagreed and didn't believe there really was anything there, back when it was first suggested. Did that disbelief change the fact that Pluto existed? Did those disbelievers have "their truth" on the subject, and the theorizers "their own truth"?

You need to learn to communicate more precisely, so that you don't whip out sloppy phrases like "does not exist for me" and start thinking that's anything literal. What you're actually trying to say is, "I don't wish to believe it exists, therefore I will adamantly refuse to even contemplate the possibility that I'm wrong". Or, for short, "I disbelieve", but you must understand that your belief is not a "truth" of any sort, in and of itself.

Thank you. I think it's a shame that some here are either unwilling or unable to think this through. Out of one side of their mouth they claim that they are right and others are wrong, while out of the other side they deny that truth is objective. And they don't even see the blatant contradiction there. It's kind of funny, actually… but sad at the same time.

Leftists used to be funny to me . . . but after years of the exact same ignorant, hysterical, self-contradicting crap, they just make me tired now.

They're evil and dangerous. And they target children. I'm furious that our parents weren't paying closer attention during the 70s.

To be fair, often they're just stupid and dangerous. Giving your average leftist any sort of power is like taping a gun with a hair trigger to a kitten's paw.

 

[Doc1]

Fertility is not an issue when the two parties cannot mate.

Sorry, thought you would have known that.

Fertility has nothing to do with civil marriage. Sorry, thought you would have known that.

I never said it did, now did I. What I DID SAY is that you want a secular version of Marriage with the Religious and Traditional overtones. Unbelievable and Hypocritical.

Says who? Everyone, religious and secular, pretty much observes the same wedding traditions. That’s why they are traditions. They aren’t Christian for shit sake, they’re pagan.

I hate to break into your ranting about the history of wedding cakes, but I feel the need to point out that it really doesn't matter WHERE the tradition came from.

If someone doesn't want to be involved in your wedding plans, there is no argument or rationale that's going to make it any less of a dick move to try to force them to. Just go find someone who DOES want to associate with you, and get on with your damned life.

Baking a cake does not involve the baker in the wedding. The hotel a child is conceived in does not involve the hotel in the family.

Your "Right" to be a carpet muncher does not trample their "Right" to practice their Religion.

 

[koshergrl]

There's no such thing as "my truth" or "your truth". Truth and fact just are. That's kinda the definition. God exists, or He does not, and neither my belief or your disbelief will alter it one way or the other.

Look at it this way: the existence of Pluto (the planet, not the Disney dog) was completely unknown for a long time, and then it was suspected and posited and theorized long before any definitive proof existed. And there were a lot of people who disagreed and didn't believe there really was anything there, back when it was first suggested. Did that disbelief change the fact that Pluto existed? Did those disbelievers have "their truth" on the subject, and the theorizers "their own truth"?

You need to learn to communicate more precisely, so that you don't whip out sloppy phrases like "does not exist for me" and start thinking that's anything literal. What you're actually trying to say is, "I don't wish to believe it exists, therefore I will adamantly refuse to even contemplate the possibility that I'm wrong". Or, for short, "I disbelieve", but you must understand that your belief is not a "truth" of any sort, in and of itself.

Thank you. I think it's a shame that some here are either unwilling or unable to think this through. Out of one side of their mouth they claim that they are right and others are wrong, while out of the other side they deny that truth is objective. And they don't even see the blatant contradiction there. It's kind of funny, actually… but sad at the same time.

Leftists used to be funny to me . . . but after years of the exact same ignorant, hysterical, self-contradicting crap, they just make me tired now.

They're evil and dangerous. And they target children. I'm furious that our parents weren't paying closer attention during the 70s.

To be fair, often they're just stupid and dangerous. Giving your average leftist any sort of power is like taping a gun with a hair trigger to a kitten's paw.

They have power..a lot of it. In our schools and over our public lands.

People who don't live in rural areas often don't recognize that..but they should.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

no it wasn't. it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists, can't stand your sorry asses.

I still stand with Dr. Thomas Sowell on this subject, and say that marriage is not some goody box of gifts and bennies from the government, and anyone who thinks it is either is terminally stupid, or is REALLY not doing marriage correctly.

So you only got married in a church? You don't file joint taxes or get those insurance discounts? Not going to take his SS if he goes first?

Like I said, if you really think, "Gosh, married people have so many advantages over single people 'cause of joint income tax filing and Social Security survivor benefits", you're a moron, and/or you are seriously ignorant about what marriage ACTUALLY is and what it's for. I've been saying this pretty much from the beginning of homosexuals saying, "We have to have legal marital sanction so that we're getting in on the goodies!"

Dr. Sowell wrote this back in 2005, but leaving aside the dated current event references, the underlying principles are still correct:

Gay Marriage 'Rights' Are Nonsensical | Human Events

Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

He wrote this in 2006:

Thomas Sowell - Gay "marriage"

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

This is the standpoint with which I was agreeing earlier: from a legal standpoint, marriage is not an expansion of rights, a smorgasbord of extra goodies to which only married people are entitled; it is a restriction, legally speaking, and all those "benefits" people keep yammering on about are really just a legal recognition of that.

You didn’t answer the question. Did you only marry in a church or did you get the state issued marriage license? Gays had been marrying for decades without the goodies you straight folks got.

What in the holy fuck are you babbling about, or trying to get at? "Only marry in a church"? What the hell does that mean, or have to do with anything?

And the only "goody" heterosexuals have that homosexuals don't is the general opinion that our relationships are normal. Personally, I don't give a shit.

 

[koshergrl]

The homo marriage thing has never been about getting equal rights.

It has always been about eliminating the rights of Christians and bringing the churches under state control. Always.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fertility is not an issue when the two parties cannot mate.

Sorry, thought you would have known that.

Fertility has nothing to do with civil marriage. Sorry, thought you would have known that.

I never said it did, now did I. What I DID SAY is that you want a secular version of Marriage with the Religious and Traditional overtones. Unbelievable and Hypocritical.

Says who? Everyone, religious and secular, pretty much observes the same wedding traditions. That’s why they are traditions. They aren’t Christian for shit sake, they’re pagan.

I hate to break into your ranting about the history of wedding cakes, but I feel the need to point out that it really doesn't matter WHERE the tradition came from.

If someone doesn't want to be involved in your wedding plans, there is no argument or rationale that's going to make it any less of a dick move to try to force them to. Just go find someone who DOES want to associate with you, and get on with your damned life.

Baking a cake does not involve the baker in the wedding. The hotel a child is conceived in does not involve the hotel in the family.

Guess what? That's your opinion, and not everyone agrees with you, and instead of getting in people's faces and demanding that they accept your viewpoint as objective truth . . . MOVE THE FUCK ON AND FIND PEOPLE WHO WANT YOU AROUND.

And never forget the possibility that people dislike you just because you're unpleasant, and your sexuality has nothing to do with it.

 

[Silhouette]

Baking a cake does not involve the baker in the wedding. The hotel a child is conceived in does not involve the hotel in the family.

Well there will never be a case where a child is conceived in a hotel or anywhere else by two people of the same gender so the courts can breathe a sigh of relief there.

 

[buttercup]

The homo marriage thing has never been about getting equal rights.

It has always been about eliminating the rights of Christians and bringing the churches under state control. Always.

I also believe that there's more to this than meets the eye. Many here will probably scoff at this, but it's part of a much bigger agenda… And ultimately, it's a spiritual battle. The good news is, the temporary powers of this world will lose in the end. But things are going to get much worse before that happens.

 

[dblack]

"Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves."

Social Engineering. -- "It's different when we do it".

 

[Lysistrata]

You actually believe this garbage after millennia of the flesh of powerless women being traded around for money and political purposes? Arranged marriage? A father selling his daughter's vagina and uterus for a financial or political benefit; a brother doing the same with his sister's body? How obscene. What a farce. Woman-flesh has been traded throughout history. It still goes on. Look at the phony "Christians" with their female "purity," keeping their daughters ignorant and under wraps, so the fathers can trade their flesh for the highest price to some slime whose only aim is to be "the first" to break their hymen. The whole system has always been a slave trade.

You mean like Planned Parenthood trades women, their money, and their dead babies for money and political purposes? You mean like the porn industry (proudly protected by queers everywhere) exploits powerless women for money and political purposes?

Last I checked, the people on our side object to that stuff, and people on your side endorse it.

So you have no concept that female human beings might be entitled to make their own decisions. PP has NEVER traded women sexually, or their money, for any purpose. The "dead babies" thing is a result of your ignorance and incapacity to realize that these INDEPENDENT human beings have a right to determine their own futures. Prove in some firm way that PP "trades" anything. You just want prostitution, the sale of women, and the subjugation of women to continue. Filth.

So you maintain that their victims *CHOOSE* to be exploited by PP, the porn industry and other abusers..and therefore must be *accommodated* by people who look the other way.

But when we criticize PP for exploiting women, we're *anti woman*.

See, like I said..you are organically brain damaged.

Provide any, any evidence that PP "exploits" women or somehow turns women and girls into prostitution or the porn industry. The folks who CHOOSE to walk through PP doors do so voluntarily. I personally benefited from this organization's services, as did just about everyone in my dorm at a college run by the Roman Catholic church. PP's services allowed all of these students to make decisions for themselves. In our four years, lots of female and male GRADUATED.

Remember that one has to make the decision to call PP and set up an appointment. No one from PP contacts anybody. Do you have any idea of what a person's capacity for individual decision-making is abouta/

Planned Parenthood Pays $4.3 Million To Settle Allegations Of Unnecessary Medical Care

Planned Parenthood also to blame for Gosnell | News, Sports, Jobs - The Express

We know that the shitheads who represent the filthy government of Texas forum-shop and that many in the Texas judicial system are corrupt. We know that the scumbags in charge of Texas lie to the people and the government on these issues. There is history there.
How would PP have anything to do with Gosnell? It is the job of the government of every state to inspect medical facilities. They failed. Their failure has absolutely nothing to do with PP clinics. There is no link between him and PP.

Remember that the fuckheads who run Texas continued to advertise in OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT LITERATURE that there is a link between having an abortion and later getting cancer, after this assertion was soundly debunked by medical professionals, and the Texas government maintained to the United States Supreme Court that having an abortion was more dangerous than having a colonoscopy, another assertion soundly debunked by medical professionals.

Just what is the matter with you that you don't want female people with all their options and let them exercise their own decision-making authority?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The homo marriage thing has never been about getting equal rights.

It has always been about eliminating the rights of Christians and bringing the churches under state control. Always.

You may be correct, but that's a two-way street.

It has always been about controlling other people.

One side wanted to control the relationships of others, while the other side wanted to control the religious beliefs of the other side. Gays were just caught up in it, and used as political pawns, when they simply wanted the same life as straight people.

The correct solution was to disarm BOTH sides and declare marriage a contractual arrangement that does not, and should not require any type of state permission (license).

That would have fix all the problems.

Court can dissolve partnerships. A marriage is no different.

Courts already handle child-custody cases, so that nothing new either.

A contract does not require gender specifics. Nor is it limited to just two parties (polygamy--oh, no!!!). Nor does it exclude siblings or other close family members (incest -- oh, no!!!). It doesn't require the people to love each other or to be able to produce retarded spawn.

People with the legal capacity to enter into contracts have the legal capacity to marry. That eliminates children, dogs, trees, all other bullshit boogy-man concerns about what marriage will become.

When everyone started treating marriage as a privilege bestowed on us by the state, we lost our way. I believe it started with racism. One had to get permission from the state to be a "race traitor" and marry someone of a different race.

So, while I am glad the SCOTUS gave rights to gay couples, I think they missed an opportunity, but they may not have had the guts to live with the consequences. I see that in a lot of SCOTUS opinions.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why force gay lifestyle on people that want nothing to do with it?

Because you and your ilk force your shit on gays all the time

Lol
I’m a libertarian, I do no such thing...

But as a libertarian , I'm willing to bet that you would have no problem allowing others to force their shit on gays -without any fear of reprisals from the government. Right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves."

Social Engineering. -- "It's different when we do it".

Um, no. There are some things in which the state has an interest, and many - most - things in which it does not. Read the rest of the article. He explains it pretty well. The government's interest in this area is NOT about social engineering, so much as it is a simple recognition that certain aspects of certain unions have a wide-reaching effect on others. Ideally, the government should restrict itself only to those areas.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You mean like Planned Parenthood trades women, their money, and their dead babies for money and political purposes? You mean like the porn industry (proudly protected by queers everywhere) exploits powerless women for money and political purposes?

Last I checked, the people on our side object to that stuff, and people on your side endorse it.

So you have no concept that female human beings might be entitled to make their own decisions. PP has NEVER traded women sexually, or their money, for any purpose. The "dead babies" thing is a result of your ignorance and incapacity to realize that these INDEPENDENT human beings have a right to determine their own futures. Prove in some firm way that PP "trades" anything. You just want prostitution, the sale of women, and the subjugation of women to continue. Filth.

So you maintain that their victims *CHOOSE* to be exploited by PP, the porn industry and other abusers..and therefore must be *accommodated* by people who look the other way.

But when we criticize PP for exploiting women, we're *anti woman*.

See, like I said..you are organically brain damaged.

Provide any, any evidence that PP "exploits" women or somehow turns women and girls into prostitution or the porn industry. The folks who CHOOSE to walk through PP doors do so voluntarily. I personally benefited from this organization's services, as did just about everyone in my dorm at a college run by the Roman Catholic church. PP's services allowed all of these students to make decisions for themselves. In our four years, lots of female and male GRADUATED.

Remember that one has to make the decision to call PP and set up an appointment. No one from PP contacts anybody. Do you have any idea of what a person's capacity for individual decision-making is abouta/

Planned Parenthood Pays $4.3 Million To Settle Allegations Of Unnecessary Medical Care

Planned Parenthood also to blame for Gosnell | News, Sports, Jobs - The Express

We know that the shitheads who represent the filthy government of Texas forum-shop and that many in the Texas judicial system are corrupt. We know that the scumbags in charge of Texas lie to the people and the government on these issues. There is history there.
How would PP have anything to do with Gosnell? It is the job of the government of every state to inspect medical facilities. They failed. Their failure has absolutely nothing to do with PP clinics. There is no link between him and PP.

Remember that the fuckheads who run Texas continued to advertise in OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT LITERATURE that there is a link between having an abortion and later getting cancer, after this assertion was soundly debunked by medical professionals, and the Texas government maintained to the United States Supreme Court that having an abortion was more dangerous than having a colonoscopy, another assertion soundly debunked by medical professionals.

Just what is the matter with you that you don't want female people with all their options and let them exercise their own decision-making authority?

You go girl!! Some people are just fucking idiots blinded by their own bigotry.

 

[Slyhunter]

Fertility is not an issue when the two parties cannot mate.

Sorry, thought you would have known that.

Fertility has nothing to do with civil marriage. Sorry, thought you would have known that.

I never said it did, now did I. What I DID SAY is that you want a secular version of Marriage with the Religious and Traditional overtones. Unbelievable and Hypocritical.

Says who? Everyone, religious and secular, pretty much observes the same wedding traditions. That’s why they are traditions. They aren’t Christian for shit sake, they’re pagan.

I hate to break into your ranting about the history of wedding cakes, but I feel the need to point out that it really doesn't matter WHERE the tradition came from.

If someone doesn't want to be involved in your wedding plans, there is no argument or rationale that's going to make it any less of a dick move to try to force them to. Just go find someone who DOES want to associate with you, and get on with your damned life.

Baking a cake does not involve the baker in the wedding. The hotel a child is conceived in does not involve the hotel in the family.

Baking the cake wasn't the problem. He'd sale them a damn cake. Decorating it with gay crap is the problem.

 

[Leo123]

Hey, I have a question...Should gays be allowed to discriminate against Christians? SCOTUS found they violated the baker's right to practice his religion. Neo-Marxist lefties have it backwards as usual.

 

[Leo123]

You go girl!! Some people are just fucking idiots blinded by their own bigotry.

You must be talking to yourself.

 

[Slyhunter]

Hey, I have a question...Should gays be allowed to discriminate against Christians? SCOTUS found they violated the baker's right to practice his religion. Neo-Marxist lefties have it backwards as usual.

It wasn't about the cake it was about telling an artist what he could and could not create.