My Problem with Pro-Life and Anti-Gay People

[RandallFlagg]

MAN doesn't decide what marriage is, GOD does, and GOD said that marriage is the holy union between a MAN and a WOMAN.

He also said that homosexuality was an abomination, and that man should not lie with a man as a woman.

So it's not up to man to define marriage. Homos want the benefits a moral marriage like a man and a woman have, take the civil union and shut the fuck up.

So people who do not believe in your god are not really married, eh?

If they don't believe in "my God," the why on earth would they want to be married as he says marriage should be?

There's only one real marriage on this planet, and that's between a man a woman. Two men or two women wanting to marry is nothing more than them bastardizing marriage with their disgusting, unnatural, immoral, unholy sexual perversion. What your describing is defined by man, who when strays from Gods word becomes immoral and perverted, like you.

Exactly. They don't "believe" have no intention of "believing" but intend to throw it in the face of those who do.

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lay with a man as you do a woman for it is despicable"

They are determined to mock believers at every turn and the left is thrilled to death about it.

Honestly, I never used to give two hoots in hell about what these perverts did in their own bedrooms. Never bothered me in the least. Not any more. They have successfully turned me, as well as many others, against them because we see their agenda for what it is - one more bit of destruction of the United States.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Separation of church and state:

Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can you read the first part of the sentence? Congress (government) will not make laws respecting an establishment of religion (anti-gay marriage bigotry misguidedly based on the Bible), nor prohibit the free exercise thereof (we won't tax your silly cult into third world poverty as long as you stay out of the public government).

That is the separation of church and state. It's pretty fucking obvious even thought it doesn't specifically use the words "separation of church and state". It means keep your silly cult out of our laws and we'll keep our laws off of your silly cult.

...tell me EXACTLY how this has one thing to do with "separation of "Church and State"?

Here:

The majority…agreed that the First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District | LII / Legal Information Institute

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and the same applies to the First Amendment, where it was clearly the intent of the Framers to keep church and state separate, that the Constitution determines when religion is or is not appropriate in the government venue, and that the Constitution prohibits the codification of subjective religious dogma in secular law all must obey.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Separation of church and state:

Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can you read the first part of the sentence? Congress (government) will not make laws respecting an establishment of religion (anti-gay marriage bigotry misguidedly based on the Bible), nor prohibit the free exercise thereof (we won't tax your silly cult into third world poverty as long as you stay out of the public government).

That is the separation of church and state. It's pretty fucking obvious even thought it doesn't specifically use the words "separation of church and state". It means keep your silly cult out of our laws and we'll keep our laws off of your silly cult.

You obviously can't comprehend what you read. It says no such thing.

Obviously. NO WHERE does it EVER state that government can NOT be involved in religion nor can it stop ANYONE from exercising their practice of religion - yet every day, they push it farther and farther away from it's intended meaning.

Go to the House or the Senate - everyday sessions are opened with a Prayer. Go to the SCOTUS - Moses holds the 10 commandments over the building and the 10 commandments are posted directly behind the Chief Justice.

Now, let's see the left bitch about that. Nope. Small steps. They aren't bullshitting me.

 

[g5000]

If they don't believe in "my God," the why on earth would they want to be married as he says marriage should be?

They don't want to be married as your God says marriage should be (wives and concubines?), whatever that is.

They want to be married in the eyes of the State, not in the eyes of your God, so they can receive the exact same cash and prizes and state recognition as other married people get.


Why is this not sinking in? Do you need smaller words?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Separation of church and state:

Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can you read the first part of the sentence? Congress (government) will not make laws respecting an establishment of religion (anti-gay marriage bigotry misguidedly based on the Bible), nor prohibit the free exercise thereof (we won't tax your silly cult into third world poverty as long as you stay out of the public government).

That is the separation of church and state. It's pretty fucking obvious even thought it doesn't specifically use the words "separation of church and state". It means keep your silly cult out of our laws and we'll keep our laws off of your silly cult.

...tell me EXACTLY how this has one thing to do with "separation of "Church and State"?

Here:

The majority…agreed that the First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District | LII / Legal Information Institute

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and the same applies to the First Amendment, where it was clearly the intent of the Framers to keep church and state separate, that the Constitution determines when religion is or is not appropriate in the government venue, and that the Constitution prohibits the codification of subjective religious dogma in secular law all must obey.

Go back to preparing briefs for your bosses paralegal. You piece of shit attorneys (or their lackeys) have screwed the United States long enough. Your profession will get theirs in due time.

 

[g5000]

Your spouse is covered by your employer's insurance. Gays are asking for the same thing.

Your spouse will receive Social Security survivor benefits when you die. Gays are asking for the same thing.

If you are critically ill and on your deathbed in the hospital, your spouse is allowed in to sit with you as your breathe your last. Gays are asking for the same thing.

God is not involved. THE STATE IS. The State, and bigotry on the part of the people, is preventing these things.

Just like Jim Crow laws required the full participation of the State to deny blacks equal rights, so too does modern day discrimination require the State to participate to exclude gays from the privileges endowed by the State everyone else enjoys. This has nothing to do with your God.


For crying out loud, get that through your thick skulls.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

MAN doesn't decide what marriage is, GOD does, and GOD said that marriage is the holy union between a MAN and a WOMAN.

He also said that homosexuality was an abomination, and that man should not lie with a man as a woman.

So it's not up to man to define marriage. Homos want the benefits a moral marriage like a man and a woman have, take the civil union and shut the fuck up.

So people who do not believe in your god are not really married, eh?

If they don't believe in "my God," the why on earth would they want to be married as he says marriage should be?

Because they don’t believe in your ‘god,’ and understandably so.

And there are Christian denominations, such as the United Church of Christ, that perform and recognize marriage between same-sex couples.

Moreover, 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to state and local governments, not private persons or organizations, including religious institutions.

The issue therefore only concerns secular marriage law, not marriage pursuant to religious doctrine or dogma.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As it states in the title, I have a serious problem with people who are against gays and are pro-life. Personally, I believe that gays should be able to marry because this is America, land of the free, where people are allowed to love and marry and not submit to the authority of one faith (Christianity *cough* *cough*), as guaranteed by separation of church and state and the 1st amendment. As such, gays are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to marry. Just as long as churches are permitted to deny them service (religious freedom) I am okay with it. If gays have problems finding pastors/priests, they could find other solutions and hold it in a park or something with a friend giving vows.
Same follows for abortion. While I believe abortion itself is wrong, actually, I see no problem with contraceptives and believe Christians lack the right to invoke the 1st amendment on their behalf in regards to that. I say that if Christians want that, then they have to legalize abortion to balance things. You know, for a religion that seems to invoke the 1st at every step of the way, they seem awfully keen to impose their faith on others and take their freedom away. My justification for contraceptives? Catholicism defines life as starting from conception till death. Their is no life, therefore, to destroy by using contraceptives. Plus, this takes away the need for abortions because contraceptives are now even easier to have access to, so one could feel entirely justified in telling someone they can't have an abortion. Just tell them, "Well. Sorry 'bout your luck. Shoulda been prepared."
As I have stated, people who hate gays and oppose contraceptives are hypocrites. Same goes for people on the opposite side who plead the exact same but mirrored in reverse against Christians.

So, other than lying about everything, you really don't have a problem with them?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As it states in the title, I have a serious problem with people who are against gays and are pro-life. Personally, I believe that gays should be able to marry because this is America, land of the free, where people are allowed to love and marry and not submit to the authority of one faith (Christianity *cough* *cough*), as guaranteed by separation of church and state and the 1st amendment. As such, gays are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to marry. Just as long as churches are permitted to deny them service (religious freedom) I am okay with it. If gays have problems finding pastors/priests, they could find other solutions and hold it in a park or something with a friend giving vows.
Same follows for abortion. While I believe abortion itself is wrong, actually, I see no problem with contraceptives and believe Christians lack the right to invoke the 1st amendment on their behalf in regards to that. I say that if Christians want that, then they have to legalize abortion to balance things. You know, for a religion that seems to invoke the 1st at every step of the way, they seem awfully keen to impose their faith on others and take their freedom away. My justification for contraceptives? Catholicism defines life as starting from conception till death. Their is no life, therefore, to destroy by using contraceptives. Plus, this takes away the need for abortions because contraceptives are now even easier to have access to, so one could feel entirely justified in telling someone they can't have an abortion. Just tell them, "Well. Sorry 'bout your luck. Shoulda been prepared."
As I have stated, people who hate gays and oppose contraceptives are hypocrites. Same goes for people on the opposite side who plead the exact same but mirrored in reverse against Christians.

Duly noted. No one is allowed to think or do anything that YOU don't agree with.

Let me guess - you work for OKCupid......

No, it is only Christians who think that way.

That is the dumbest thing you have ever said, which makes it really stupid.

 

[CorvusRexus]

Duly noted. No one is allowed to think or do anything that YOU don't agree with.

Let me guess - you work for OKCupid......

No, it is only Christians who think that way.

Oh, so it's just the fag perverts at OKcupid that destroy careers....gotcha.

Is Okcupid an organization?
Am I going to ask this for all time without anyone answering me?

 

[CorvusRexus]

Separation of church and state:

Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can you read the first part of the sentence? Congress (government) will not make laws respecting an establishment of religion (anti-gay marriage bigotry misguidedly based on the Bible), nor prohibit the free exercise thereof (we won't tax your silly cult into third world poverty as long as you stay out of the public government).

That is the separation of church and state. It's pretty fucking obvious even thought it doesn't specifically use the words "separation of church and state". It means keep your silly cult out of our laws and we'll keep our laws off of your silly cult.

Now, dumbass, tell me EXACTLY how this has one thing to do with "separation of "Church and State"? It CLEARLY states that the government can NOT ESTABLISH ANY religion. NEVER does it say that the government CAN NOT participate in any religious activity.

This is not England. We CAN NOT have a "STATE RELIGION". That's all it says.

OR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

I guess you are incapable of reading THAT part, aren't you?

Typical left wing marxists. It only says what YOU want it to say - sort of like the 2nd amendment, huh?

If Christians want to not do abortions or such or condone gay marriage, let them. Government is not passing laws saying they have to recognize gay couples as married or perform mandatory abortions. Thus, they are not interfering in the practice of that religion. However, gays and the like are not punished for the majority's religion. Let God be the ultimate deciding factor once we die.
And several people keep mentioning Islam. Islam hates gays, and I am sorry to inform you that so do you.

 

[CorvusRexus]

As it states in the title, I have a serious problem with people who are against gays and are pro-life. Personally, I believe that gays should be able to marry because this is America, land of the free, where people are allowed to love and marry and not submit to the authority of one faith (Christianity *cough* *cough*), as guaranteed by separation of church and state and the 1st amendment. As such, gays are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to marry. Just as long as churches are permitted to deny them service (religious freedom) I am okay with it. If gays have problems finding pastors/priests, they could find other solutions and hold it in a park or something with a friend giving vows.
Same follows for abortion. While I believe abortion itself is wrong, actually, I see no problem with contraceptives and believe Christians lack the right to invoke the 1st amendment on their behalf in regards to that. I say that if Christians want that, then they have to legalize abortion to balance things. You know, for a religion that seems to invoke the 1st at every step of the way, they seem awfully keen to impose their faith on others and take their freedom away. My justification for contraceptives? Catholicism defines life as starting from conception till death. Their is no life, therefore, to destroy by using contraceptives. Plus, this takes away the need for abortions because contraceptives are now even easier to have access to, so one could feel entirely justified in telling someone they can't have an abortion. Just tell them, "Well. Sorry 'bout your luck. Shoulda been prepared."
As I have stated, people who hate gays and oppose contraceptives are hypocrites. Same goes for people on the opposite side who plead the exact same but mirrored in reverse against Christians.

I hope you are not conflating people who are against gay marriage and people who are pro-life.

I am okay with gay marriage and I am pro-life.

I willl address your points about contraceptives.

Just because you do not have a religious or moral objection against contraception that does not mean no one else can or does. It is a simple fact the Catholic Church, among other faiths, has a very clear anti-contraception position. You seem to think it has something to do with abortion, but that is not the basis of their objection. It is about the cheapening of life and the destruction of moral behavior and interference in God's will.

You cannot decide what someone's religious beliefs are. That is the whole point.

I would never want to see our government force Muslims to serve alcohol if that violates their religious beliefs. Just because I see nothing wrong with pouring a beer for someone else, that does not mean a Muslim's dogma is invalid. I might think it is dumb, but that is again irrelevant. A Muslim not serving alcohol in no way impinges on my rights. But forcing a Muslim to serve alcohol would impinge on his.

Just so with forcing a Christian to serve someone a contraceptive. A Christian not serving you contraceptives in no way impinges on your rights, but forcing a Christian to serve contraceptives would impinge on his. The liberals have you confused on this point, as if it does violate your rights, somehow, for a Christian not to give you the Pill.

Holy smokes, that's some seriously deranged thinking.

But even on the secular level, the idea of the government dictating to an employer what benefits they must provide to their employees is viscerally abhorrent to me. This is what is at the very root of what is wrong with the liberal outlook toward so many things in our society.

Employer-employee relations should not be forced to extend beyond an exchange of labor or services for cash. All responsibility for the employee should end there for the employer. If the employer does not provide enough cash to the employee so the employee can meet all of their wants and needs, then we have a cash problem, not a contraception problem!

Contraception is a want, not a need, by the way. Just so we are clear on that.

I don't believe the government should even be incentivizing employer-sponsored health insurance with massive tax exemptions the way it does now. This distorts and inflates the living hell out of health care costs.

You should be buying health insurance the same way you buy life, fire, home, and auto insurance. That we are now at the point of actually forcing religious employers to serve contraception against their moral code just highlights the perniciousness that has poisoned our country by increments.

At last! Someone who cares to be logical and not simply neg me!
First of all, I personally am strongly pro-life in that I won't do abortions or use contraceptives, and I support gays having the ability to marry. But just because I think contraceptives are wrong, doesn't mean others do. You referenced forcing Muslims to serve alcohol, and that is a valid point. But look at it this way, people say that because their personal moral philosophy bans something, no one else should be able to do it. Your philosophy clouds your judgment and makes you too subjective. So, is it right for you to justify taking others access to contraceptives away merely because you don't like them? Hence my problem with religion.
But I digress. As to your point about employers, I believe purely religious institutions, like churches or other organizations that declare their intent to be religious, should be exempt. But if non-Christian businesses must pay for contraceptives, than so should businesses owned by Christians that exist to make a profit and aren't religious in intent. And you make another valid point addressing the collapse of employer-employee relations in past years. However, we are at that point, so saying it shouldn't be so isn't going to work at this point in time. A solution including the responsibilities to provide insurance must be reached.
Also, you must look at it like this: does banning contraceptives, gay marriage, abortion, and everything else that contradicts Christian dogma really solve the problem? The only way to reach some sort of a peace in this matter is for every party to give something up to the other side.

 

[Grandma]

Separation of church and state:

Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can you read the first part of the sentence? Congress (government) will not make laws respecting an establishment of religion (anti-gay marriage bigotry misguidedly based on the Bible), nor prohibit the free exercise thereof (we won't tax your silly cult into third world poverty as long as you stay out of the public government).

That is the separation of church and state. It's pretty fucking obvious even thought it doesn't specifically use the words "separation of church and state". It means keep your silly cult out of our laws and we'll keep our laws off of your silly cult.

Now, dumbass, tell me EXACTLY how this has one thing to do with "separation of "Church and State"? It CLEARLY states that the government can NOT ESTABLISH ANY religion. NEVER does it say that the government CAN NOT participate in any religious activity.

This is not England. We CAN NOT have a "STATE RELIGION". That's all it says.

OR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

I guess you are incapable of reading THAT part, aren't you?

Typical left wing marxists. It only says what YOU want it to say - sort of like the 2nd amendment, huh?

Oh yeah, the 2nd is only open to your interpretation.

Anyhoo, by allowing the law of any religion to become the law of the land based on that religion's practicioners' wishes, then it becomes an imposition of religion into state.

In other words, You're wrong, Randy.

 

[1776]

1) Gays can have a "civil marriage" so they can sue each other over their pink tu-tus when they split up like most gay people do, but don't call it "marriage" because it is an INFERIOR arrangment for society since gay people can't have children to support society unless they enter into some fucked up 3 way arrangement which many times fucks up the children and the people (see the Kansas sperm donor case). No matter how much lipstick you put on gays....they are still disgusting pigs.

2) I am not Catholic thus don't follow their contraception ban which I believe is wrong. Now abortion is something that should be banned unless a special case can be made regarding incest, rape and medical problems for the mother. Most abortions are typically to cover up sex acts, not the aforementioned reasons. Abortion is murder and mnost times used more than a condom with some scumbag women.

People like you to me are....idiots.

As it states in the title, I have a serious problem with people who are against gays and are pro-life. Personally, I believe that gays should be able to marry because this is America, land of the free, where people are allowed to love and marry and not submit to the authority of one faith (Christianity *cough* *cough*), as guaranteed by separation of church and state and the 1st amendment. As such, gays are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to marry. Just as long as churches are permitted to deny them service (religious freedom) I am okay with it. If gays have problems finding pastors/priests, they could find other solutions and hold it in a park or something with a friend giving vows.
Same follows for abortion. While I believe abortion itself is wrong, actually, I see no problem with contraceptives and believe Christians lack the right to invoke the 1st amendment on their behalf in regards to that. I say that if Christians want that, then they have to legalize abortion to balance things. You know, for a religion that seems to invoke the 1st at every step of the way, they seem awfully keen to impose their faith on others and take their freedom away. My justification for contraceptives? Catholicism defines life as starting from conception till death. Their is no life, therefore, to destroy by using contraceptives. Plus, this takes away the need for abortions because contraceptives are now even easier to have access to, so one could feel entirely justified in telling someone they can't have an abortion. Just tell them, "Well. Sorry 'bout your luck. Shoulda been prepared."
As I have stated, people who hate gays and oppose contraceptives are hypocrites. Same goes for people on the opposite side who plead the exact same but mirrored in reverse against Christians.

 

[GreenBean]

As it states in the title, I have a serious problem with people who are against gays and are pro-life. Personally, I believe that gays should be able to marry because this is America, land of the free, where people are allowed to love and marry and not submit to the authority of one faith (Christianity *cough* *cough*), as guaranteed by separation of church and state and the 1st amendment. As such, gays are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to marry. Just as long as churches are permitted to deny them service (religious freedom) I am okay with it. If gays have problems finding pastors/priests, they could find other solutions and hold it in a park or something with a friend giving vows.

You can be extremely Aniti- gay and still support their rights to marry and equality - "Personally, I believe that gays should be able to marry because this is America, land of the free, where people are allowed to love and marry and not submit to the authority of one faith"

The big Problem is undertstanding the difference between the GAY AGENDA and Gay Rights

The tactics employed by current day Liberals and in particular Gay Activists was developed in the 30s and 40s by the Nazis and Stalinist Russia , was perfected by the totalitarian dictators of Communist China in the 50s and 60s, and utilized extensively by American Liberals since at least the early 70s. Exposed in a fictional format by George Orwell's work of Fiction entitled 1984, it was scientifically first exposed by Robert Jay Lifton in Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of 'Brainwashing' in China in the 60s .

It's incorporation into the Gay Arsenal began with a book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's (Plume)by Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry and his sidekick Hunter Madsen. A powerfully persuasive, perverse and popular book within the gay community it presents an impassioned plea, and a brilliant strategy for homosexual activists to implement an aggressive, concerted and organized campaign to mold public perceptions, and brainwash the young.
Gay* Brainwashing Techniques

 

[JakeStarkey]

My Problem with Pro-Life and Anti-Gay People

One can be pro-life (no abortions after 20 weeks except for serious fetal abnormality, life and health of the mother, as well as exceptions for rape and incest) and pro-LGBT without any problem.

 

[RandallFlagg]

No, it is only Christians who think that way.

Oh, so it's just the fag perverts at OKcupid that destroy careers....gotcha.

Is Okcupid an organization?
Am I going to ask this for all time without anyone answering me?

Do your homework. I won't do it for you, fool.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Separation of church and state:

Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can you read the first part of the sentence? Congress (government) will not make laws respecting an establishment of religion (anti-gay marriage bigotry misguidedly based on the Bible), nor prohibit the free exercise thereof (we won't tax your silly cult into third world poverty as long as you stay out of the public government).

That is the separation of church and state. It's pretty fucking obvious even thought it doesn't specifically use the words "separation of church and state". It means keep your silly cult out of our laws and we'll keep our laws off of your silly cult.

Now, dumbass, tell me EXACTLY how this has one thing to do with "separation of "Church and State"? It CLEARLY states that the government can NOT ESTABLISH ANY religion. NEVER does it say that the government CAN NOT participate in any religious activity.

This is not England. We CAN NOT have a "STATE RELIGION". That's all it says.

OR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

I guess you are incapable of reading THAT part, aren't you?

Typical left wing marxists. It only says what YOU want it to say - sort of like the 2nd amendment, huh?

Oh yeah, the 2nd is only open to your interpretation.

Anyhoo, by allowing the law of any religion to become the law of the land based on that religion's practicioners' wishes, then it becomes an imposition of religion into state.

In other words, You're wrong, Randy.

Bullshit Security Clearance. Prove it.

 

[GISMYS]

USA= HERE IN GOD WE TRUST!! One nation under GOD with liberty and justice for all!!!

 

[CorvusRexus]

USA= HERE IN GOD WE TRUST!! One nation under GOD with liberty and justice for all!!!

Liberty and justice for all?
Let the gays marry, something I am sure you are highly opposed to, GISMYS.