Jesus “tells us to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”

[emilynghiem]

The only people that marriage imposes upon are those wed by it.

Hi Agit8r
Tell that to the Atheists and legal groups who sue to remove Crosses.
How is this imposing on them? Yet they win, claiming to believe in separation of church and state.

Ok; how about this; we really don't want to hear the right crying about Satanists claiming they can do a better job than most alleged Christians, and are are willing to "prove" their position regarding equal work for equal pay, alongside any other religion--especially in public venues.

Hi danielpalos
Yes it goes both ways. If you don't want people imposing their religious and political beliefs on you,
then don't impose yours on them. Separate out all views to practice in private, set up your own churches, businesses and nonprofit programs. And let's only have programs and policies in govt that ALL people and groups AGREE include and protect their beliefs and creeds equally in order to be Constitutional under law and suitable for public policy and govt.

We'd get along great, and save enough resources to invest in our own program development and representation/service to constituents under respective policies, and leave each other alone! I agree!

 

[PratchettFan]

Not dodging at all. If you consider a PA law to be unfair, then you should address the PA law. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether US citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law.

and that has nothing to do with whether laws authorizing SSM force those not getting married to do anything......as pointed out, in the case of both the florist and the baker, the law authorizing SSM did in fact require them to do something.....thus, the claim that it didn't falls short of truth.....

There is absolutely nothing in any SSM law which authorizes any such thing. Show me one from any state which does.

oh come on....do you think you can win this argument by just pretending you don't see it?.......did we have bakers and florists and photographers being threatened with law suits for not providing services for gay weddings before states began allowing gay weddings?.....if allowing gay weddings permits law suits against those who don't want to provide services for gay weddings, then one cannot pretend that allowing gay marriage has no impact upon anyone other than the people getting married......to deny it merely demonstrates dishonesty......

I see what you are saying. It is just the two really aren't connected at all. When interracial marriages were found to be Constitutionally protected I am sure there were all kinds of people who didn't want to have to provide services to them. That does not mean interracial couples shouldn't be given the same rights as everyone else. I am certain that many of those people thought God didn't want the races to marry.

So, to answer honestly, what you are saying is there is a conflict of rights between people who want to get married and people who provide services to weddings. If the state says the providers can refuse because of their religious beliefs, then the people getting married will have to go somewhere else for them. I am fine with that. If the state says the providers can't refuse, then the providers will either have to provide the services to them or stop providing the services entirely. I am fine with that as well. But I am not fine with denying basic rights to an entire segment of our society just on the chance those providers might have to make that decision.

Should a Baptist be prevented from marrying because a Catholic florist might be required to provide services?

Hi PratchettFan
Yes and no
It's been pointed out, over and over,
that RACE is not a behavior. Homosexual relations are a behavior.
Orientation is NOT PROVEN.

That's why there's such a legal and religious conflict over whether
gender is determined at birth as physical like RACE,
or if you can start "wandering into behavior" by saying gender is
what someone chooses to dress up like on the outside.

The people in support of recognizing gender and orientation
as an internal trait and not just a behavior on the outside
are trying to prove it is GENETIC to seal the argument.

In the meantime it is FAITH BASED.
so like any other FAITH BASED BELIEF it should be kept out of public policy
unless people agree.

People agree to the race rules, and agree to keep their beliefs in private,
so that isn't being challenged as the gender/orientation rules are being challenged by people who don't agree to keep these private. Also the rules on political beliefs haven't been formally challenged and that is happening now.

PratchettFan
as I've pointed out before,
people have gone through spiritual healing therapy and CHANGED
their lifestyle and relations, to and from either transgender, straight, gay, etc.
You can say they go back to their NATURAL self, but they go through a spiritual process to get there.

Nobody I know has ever changed their natural born race by going through spiritual healing.
So these are NOT on the same level.

If you ask me the REAL issue is CREED.
If people recognized and respected all these views and beliefs as CREEDS
then all can be treated equally in the eyes of the law.
But people on both sides keep wanting to push their creed over someone else.
So this is a violation of discrimination by creed, and both sides are equally guilty
unless they agree on consensus policies that satisfy and protect all CREEDS equally as the law calls for.

I understand it has been pointed out over and over again. It just has been wrong, over and over again. Utterly wrong. Completely wrong. Having absolutely no basis in truth. Incorrect in every manner. Am I getting my position across? I am really trying to be clear.

Homosexuality is not a behavior. Kissing someone is a behavior. Being attracted to someone is not. Homosexuality is a physical state of being, just like race. You might as well argue that having one leg shorter than the other is a behavior- for you would be equally in error.

However, regardless of that, the state has as much authority to protect that as it does to protect religion.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I'm sorry, did you really mean to dodge the issue?.....

Not dodging at all. If you consider a PA law to be unfair, then you should address the PA law. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether US citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law.

and that has nothing to do with whether laws authorizing SSM force those not getting married to do anything......as pointed out, in the case of both the florist and the baker, the law authorizing SSM did in fact require them to do something.....thus, the claim that it didn't falls short of truth.....

There is absolutely nothing in any SSM law which authorizes any such thing. Show me one from any state which does.

oh come on....do you think you can win this argument by just pretending you don't see it?.......did we have bakers and florists and photographers being threatened with law suits for not providing services for gay weddings before states began allowing gay weddings?.....if allowing gay weddings permits law suits against those who don't want to provide services for gay weddings, then one cannot pretend that allowing gay marriage has no impact upon anyone other than the people getting married......to deny it merely demonstrates dishonesty......

I see what you are saying. It is just the two really aren't connected at all.

of course they are.....you didn't have gays asking bakers to bake cakes for their gay weddings when there were no gay weddings.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

So, to answer honestly, what you are saying is there is a conflict of rights between people who want to get married and people who provide services to weddings.

no....what I am saying is that it isn't legitimate to say gay marriage doesn't impact any one else when it obviously impacts other people.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Should a Baptist be prevented from marrying because a Catholic florist might be required to provide services?

sham argument....the gay couple wasn't prevented from marrying because a florist refused to do the flowers for their wedding.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Homosexuality is not a behavior. Kissing someone is a behavior. Being attracted to someone is not. Homosexuality is a physical state of being, just like race. You might as well argue that having one leg shorter than the other is a behavior- for you would be equally in error.

dude.....having a cake at a wedding ceremony IS a behavior......

 

[PratchettFan]

Homosexuality is not a behavior. Kissing someone is a behavior. Being attracted to someone is not. Homosexuality is a physical state of being, just like race. You might as well argue that having one leg shorter than the other is a behavior- for you would be equally in error.

dude.....having a cake at a wedding ceremony IS a behavior......

So is having a limp. So what?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Homosexuality is not a behavior. Kissing someone is a behavior. Being attracted to someone is not. Homosexuality is a physical state of being, just like race. You might as well argue that having one leg shorter than the other is a behavior- for you would be equally in error.

dude.....having a cake at a wedding ceremony IS a behavior......

So is having a limp. So what?

so the objection isn't that someone is gay....the objection is to the chosen behavior in the form of a wedding ceremony......(and actually having a limp is not a behavior, it may be the natural consequence of having a prosthesis).....

 

[PratchettFan]

Homosexuality is not a behavior. Kissing someone is a behavior. Being attracted to someone is not. Homosexuality is a physical state of being, just like race. You might as well argue that having one leg shorter than the other is a behavior- for you would be equally in error.

dude.....having a cake at a wedding ceremony IS a behavior......

So is having a limp. So what?

so the objection isn't that someone is gay....the objection is to the chosen behavior in the form of a wedding ceremony......(and actually having a limp is not a behavior, it may be the natural consequence of having a prosthesis).....

Marriage is the natural consequence of sexual attraction.

 

[PratchettFan]

Should a Baptist be prevented from marrying because a Catholic florist might be required to provide services?

sham argument....the gay couple wasn't prevented from marrying because a florist refused to do the flowers for their wedding.......

You said the two things were related and you are arguing gays should not be allowed to marry because a florist might have to provide services to them as if they were real people. Now you are saying they are not related?

 

[PratchettFan]

So, to answer honestly, what you are saying is there is a conflict of rights between people who want to get married and people who provide services to weddings.

no....what I am saying is that it isn't legitimate to say gay marriage doesn't impact any one else when it obviously impacts other people.......

Ok. Let us say there is a significant impact. So what?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Should a Baptist be prevented from marrying because a Catholic florist might be required to provide services?

sham argument....the gay couple wasn't prevented from marrying because a florist refused to do the flowers for their wedding.......

You said the two things were related and you are arguing gays should not be allowed to marry because a florist might have to provide services to them as if they were real people. Now you are saying they are not related?

I'm pretty sure if you read what I said word by word you will discover that I did not say they weren't related....what I said was that unlike what you claimed about some Baptist, the gay couple was not prevented from marrying because the florist refused to provide flowers for their ceremony.......I'm quite certain its possible to get married without any florist whatsoever....not to mention they could have gone to a florist who didn't object to same sex marriage.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

So, to answer honestly, what you are saying is there is a conflict of rights between people who want to get married and people who provide services to weddings.

no....what I am saying is that it isn't legitimate to say gay marriage doesn't impact any one else when it obviously impacts other people.......

Ok. Let us say there is a significant impact. So what?

obviously then we no longer have to listen to some idiot whine that it had no impact on anyone except the gay couple.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Homosexuality is not a behavior. Kissing someone is a behavior. Being attracted to someone is not. Homosexuality is a physical state of being, just like race. You might as well argue that having one leg shorter than the other is a behavior- for you would be equally in error.

dude.....having a cake at a wedding ceremony IS a behavior......

So is having a limp. So what?

so the objection isn't that someone is gay....the objection is to the chosen behavior in the form of a wedding ceremony......(and actually having a limp is not a behavior, it may be the natural consequence of having a prosthesis).....

Marriage is the natural consequence of sexual attraction.

not between a man and a man.......if that were a natural consequence society wouldn't have defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman........

 

[HenryBHough]

Jesus Saves!

Why don't you?

This message brought to you in the public interest by Bank of Athens

 

[PratchettFan]

Homosexuality is not a behavior. Kissing someone is a behavior. Being attracted to someone is not. Homosexuality is a physical state of being, just like race. You might as well argue that having one leg shorter than the other is a behavior- for you would be equally in error.

dude.....having a cake at a wedding ceremony IS a behavior......

So is having a limp. So what?

so the objection isn't that someone is gay....the objection is to the chosen behavior in the form of a wedding ceremony......(and actually having a limp is not a behavior, it may be the natural consequence of having a prosthesis).....

Marriage is the natural consequence of sexual attraction.

not between a man and a man.......if that were a natural consequence society wouldn't have defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman........

Society defines marriage as a legal contract. A legal contract is a natural consequence?

Homosexuality is natural. If marriage is a natural consequence of sexual attraction for heterosexuals, it is for homosexuals.

 

[PratchettFan]

So, to answer honestly, what you are saying is there is a conflict of rights between people who want to get married and people who provide services to weddings.

no....what I am saying is that it isn't legitimate to say gay marriage doesn't impact any one else when it obviously impacts other people.......

Ok. Let us say there is a significant impact. So what?

obviously then we no longer have to listen to some idiot whine that it had no impact on anyone except the gay couple.......

You don't have to listen now. The point being made is not allowing SSM is directly imposing upon an entire segment of society. Allowing it does not. It might, at most, impact a very small group of individuals who might have to make a choice on a purely personal level. But that is not due to the marriage but rather PA laws already in place. If you have a problem with PA laws, then address the PA laws.

 

[PostmodernProph]

dude.....having a cake at a wedding ceremony IS a behavior......

So is having a limp. So what?

so the objection isn't that someone is gay....the objection is to the chosen behavior in the form of a wedding ceremony......(and actually having a limp is not a behavior, it may be the natural consequence of having a prosthesis).....

Marriage is the natural consequence of sexual attraction.

not between a man and a man.......if that were a natural consequence society wouldn't have defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman........

Society defines marriage as a legal contract. A legal contract is a natural consequence?

Homosexuality is natural. If marriage is a natural consequence of sexual attraction for heterosexuals, it is for homosexuals.

no....society defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman......that is why gays had to take to the courts to get the definition changed.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

So, to answer honestly, what you are saying is there is a conflict of rights between people who want to get married and people who provide services to weddings.

no....what I am saying is that it isn't legitimate to say gay marriage doesn't impact any one else when it obviously impacts other people.......

Ok. Let us say there is a significant impact. So what?

obviously then we no longer have to listen to some idiot whine that it had no impact on anyone except the gay couple.......

You don't have to listen now. The point being made is not allowing SSM is directly imposing upon an entire segment of society. Allowing it does not. It might, at most, impact a very small group of individuals who might have to make a choice on a purely personal level. But that is not due to the marriage but rather PA laws already in place. If you have a problem with PA laws, then address the PA laws.

lol dude.....both allowing or not allowing SSM is directly imposing upon an entire segment of society....either upon a group who want to get married and did not meet the definition society had for marriage, or upon those who don't like the government coming along and changing the definition society has for things.....this debate is about the ignorance of those who don't understand this.........we had the same situation back in 72 when the courts decided that killing your unborn children was no longer a bad thing to do, but had turned into a constitutional right.......

 

[PratchettFan]

So is having a limp. So what?

so the objection isn't that someone is gay....the objection is to the chosen behavior in the form of a wedding ceremony......(and actually having a limp is not a behavior, it may be the natural consequence of having a prosthesis).....

Marriage is the natural consequence of sexual attraction.

not between a man and a man.......if that were a natural consequence society wouldn't have defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman........

Society defines marriage as a legal contract. A legal contract is a natural consequence?

Homosexuality is natural. If marriage is a natural consequence of sexual attraction for heterosexuals, it is for homosexuals.

no....society defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman......that is why gays had to take to the courts to get the definition changed.......

No, it doesn't. Society defines it as a legal contract. That is why society put it under the control of the state, established by state law and controlled by the courts. You may define it any way you like, but you are not society.