Rightwingers, of whom I'm one, let the gay shit go

[shintao]

Oh, so what was the left thinking when they blamed Bush for everything?

I know what I was thinking, try him for war crimes and hang his sorry ass, but what has that to do with you attempting to blame libs for the rights sins? Did you think we twisted your party's arm, forced you to drink in hate? LMAO! As late as 911 your lustrous grandma banger Falwell tried to blame gays for the terrorist attacks. Trent Lott claiming gays could be cured with holy water. The texas RNC convention denying gays entrance, and calling their own Log Cabin Republican gays, perverts, pedophiles, cross dressers, NAMBLA members, etc. Bush Sr. being chastised for speaking at a gay college. Libs didn't do that to you dude. LMAO!! You guys got a long history of gay hate.

You're really not interested in moving past this are you...?

Oh yeah, when will the right move past it? I guess when they need gay votes again.

 

[Seawytch]

Nope. There have been no lawsuits yet. There will be. Legal precedent is being set as we speak, as the SCOTUS ruling no doubt established. The loopholes and caveats are there to be exploited. You are trolling as you always are, and contribute nothing to this discussion, save for parroting the talking points of your buddies here in this thread.

Seriously dude...if Loving didn't set a precedent to force churches to marry interracial couples, how do you make the stretch from striking down section 3 of DOMA to churches being legally forced to marry gays? (They will be forced by public opinion though).

This is precisely my point. By striking down DOMA, the court set all the precedent. Thank you Seawytch for making my argument for me.

Have a good afternoon.

You're not making any sense. If Loving didn't set a precedent to require churches to marry interracial couples, how does the repeal of Section 3 of DOMA (that simply requires that the Federal Government treat my marriage exactly like it treats yours) set a precedent to require churches to marry gays? It's illogical.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I know what I was thinking, try him for war crimes and hang his sorry ass, but what has that to do with you attempting to blame libs for the rights sins? Did you think we twisted your party's arm, forced you to drink in hate? LMAO! As late as 911 your lustrous grandma banger Falwell tried to blame gays for the terrorist attacks. Trent Lott claiming gays could be cured with holy water. The texas RNC convention denying gays entrance, and calling their own Log Cabin Republican gays, perverts, pedophiles, cross dressers, NAMBLA members, etc. Bush Sr. being chastised for speaking at a gay college. Libs didn't do that to you dude. LMAO!! You guys got a long history of gay hate.

You're really not interested in moving past this are you...?

Oh yeah, when will the right move past it? I guess when they need gay votes again.

You mean Mr. No Drama Obama, who switched his stances on gay marriage at least four times during his political career? He was against it before he was for it, remember?

Or do you conveniently forget things that don't suit you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Seriously dude...if Loving didn't set a precedent to force churches to marry interracial couples, how do you make the stretch from striking down section 3 of DOMA to churches being legally forced to marry gays? (They will be forced by public opinion though).

This is precisely my point. By striking down DOMA, the court set all the precedent. Thank you Seawytch for making my argument for me.

Have a good afternoon.

You're not making any sense. If Loving didn't set a precedent to require churches to marry interracial couples, how does the repeal of Section 3 of DOMA (that simply requires that the Federal Government treat my marriage exactly like it treats yours) set a precedent to require churches to marry gays? It's illogical.

Still making my point. Try as you might, your mind isn't equipped to see the landscape of hatred this ruling has laid out.

 

[Seawytch]

Nope. There have been no lawsuits yet. There will be. Legal precedent is being set as we speak, as the SCOTUS ruling no doubt established. The loopholes and caveats are there to be exploited. You are trolling as you always are, and contribute nothing to this discussion, save for parroting the talking points of your buddies here in this thread.

Seriously dude...if Loving didn't set a precedent to force churches to marry interracial couples, how do you make the stretch from striking down section 3 of DOMA to churches being legally forced to marry gays? (They will be forced by public opinion though).

In addition, public opinion has no legal bearing. Next.

Gee, another one from the "no shit Sherlock" files.

 

[Seawytch]

This is precisely my point. By striking down DOMA, the court set all the precedent. Thank you Seawytch for making my argument for me.

Have a good afternoon.

You're not making any sense. If Loving didn't set a precedent to require churches to marry interracial couples, how does the repeal of Section 3 of DOMA (that simply requires that the Federal Government treat my marriage exactly like it treats yours) set a precedent to require churches to marry gays? It's illogical.

Still making my point. Try as you might, your mind isn't equipped to see the landscape of hatred this ruling has laid out.

Your're right, I'm not equipped. I'd have to completely lose my mind first to see the "landscape" you see. Saying it doesn't make it so. The 1st Amendment is safe.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Seriously dude...if Loving didn't set a precedent to force churches to marry interracial couples, how do you make the stretch from striking down section 3 of DOMA to churches being legally forced to marry gays? (They will be forced by public opinion though).

In addition, public opinion has no legal bearing. Next.

Gee, another one from the "no shit Sherlock" files.

Yeah, after you made it clear that "They will be forced (churches marrying gays) by public opinion, though."

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're not making any sense. If Loving didn't set a precedent to require churches to marry interracial couples, how does the repeal of Section 3 of DOMA (that simply requires that the Federal Government treat my marriage exactly like it treats yours) set a precedent to require churches to marry gays? It's illogical.

Still making my point. Try as you might, your mind isn't equipped to see the landscape of hatred this ruling has laid out.

Your're right, I'm not equipped. I'd have to completely lose my mind first to see the "landscape" you see. Saying it doesn't make it so. The 1st Amendment is safe.

Sorry, you lost your mind a few pages ago, suggesting churches should be forced to marry gays against their conscience.

1st Amendment? Who cares about that? Capitulate or else!

 

[rightwinger]

You're not making any sense. If Loving didn't set a precedent to require churches to marry interracial couples, how does the repeal of Section 3 of DOMA (that simply requires that the Federal Government treat my marriage exactly like it treats yours) set a precedent to require churches to marry gays? It's illogical.

Still making my point. Try as you might, your mind isn't equipped to see the landscape of hatred this ruling has laid out.

Your're right, I'm not equipped. I'd have to completely lose my mind first to see the "landscape" you see. Saying it doesn't make it so. The 1st Amendment is safe.

It is the landscape of conservative ideals.......everyone is he same, white, Christian, male, heterosexual

It makes their lives so simple......just reject anyone outside of your ideal

 

[Seawytch]

In addition, public opinion has no legal bearing. Next.

Gee, another one from the "no shit Sherlock" files.

Yeah, after you made it clear that "They will be forced (churches marrying gays) by public opinion, though."

They will be. The churches will adapt or die. With majorities in all but the Evangelical religions supporting marriage equality, they will start marrying gays and lesbians to survive.

That's the only way it's going to happen. Churches will not be required to marry gays anymore than they've been required by law to marry ANYONE.

 

[Seawytch]

Still making my point. Try as you might, your mind isn't equipped to see the landscape of hatred this ruling has laid out.

Your're right, I'm not equipped. I'd have to completely lose my mind first to see the "landscape" you see. Saying it doesn't make it so. The 1st Amendment is safe.

Sorry, you lost your mind a few pages ago, suggesting churches should be forced to marry gays against their conscience.

1st Amendment? Who cares about that? Capitulate or else!

I didn't suggest they would be forced by law, but by public opinion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your're right, I'm not equipped. I'd have to completely lose my mind first to see the "landscape" you see. Saying it doesn't make it so. The 1st Amendment is safe.

Sorry, you lost your mind a few pages ago, suggesting churches should be forced to marry gays against their conscience.

1st Amendment? Who cares about that? Capitulate or else!

I didn't suggest they would be forced by law, but by public opinion.

Like I told you before, we don't live according to mob rule. You seem to think we do.

 

[Seawytch]

Historically, the percentage of Americans who said they had no religious affiliation (pollsters refer to this group as the "nones") has been very small -- hovering between 5 percent and 10 percent.

However, Putnam says the percentage of "nones" has now skyrocketed to between 30 percent and 40 percent among younger Americans.

Putnam calls this a "stunning development." He gave reporters a first glimpse of his data Tuesday at a conference on religion organized by the Pew Forum on Faith in Public Life.[...]

While these young "nones" may not belong to a church, they are not necessarily atheists.

"Many of them are people who would otherwise be in church," Putnam said. "They have the same attitidues and values as people who are in church, but they grew up in a period in which being religious meant being politically conservative, especially on social issues."

Putnam says that in the past two decades, many young people began to view organized religion as a source of "intolerance and rigidity and doctrinaire political views," and therefore stopped going to church.​

Young Americans Losing Their Religion

 

[TemplarKormac]

Gee, another one from the "no shit Sherlock" files.

Yeah, after you made it clear that "They will be forced (churches marrying gays) by public opinion, though."

They will be. The churches will adapt or die. With majorities in all but the Evangelical religions supporting marriage equality, they will start marrying gays and lesbians to survive.

That's the only way it's going to happen. Churches will not be required to marry gays anymore than they've been required by law to marry ANYONE.

Listen to yourself. You don't seem to think that way about the mosque nearest you? I find your attitude to be hypocritical. Funny how Islam will survive without having to capitulate to your demands.

Your hatred and willingness to subjugate people forcefully via "public opinion" is beyond words.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Historically, the percentage of Americans who said they had no religious affiliation (pollsters refer to this group as the "nones") has been very small -- hovering between 5 percent and 10 percent.

However, Putnam says the percentage of "nones" has now skyrocketed to between 30 percent and 40 percent among younger Americans.

Putnam calls this a "stunning development." He gave reporters a first glimpse of his data Tuesday at a conference on religion organized by the Pew Forum on Faith in Public Life.[...]

While these young "nones" may not belong to a church, they are not necessarily atheists.

"Many of them are people who would otherwise be in church," Putnam said. "They have the same attitidues and values as people who are in church, but they grew up in a period in which being religious meant being politically conservative, especially on social issues."

Putnam says that in the past two decades, many young people began to view organized religion as a source of "intolerance and rigidity and doctrinaire political views," and therefore stopped going to church.​

Young Americans Losing Their Religion

I'm 25 and I don't seem to think that way. Red herring much?

 

[Seawytch]

Sorry, you lost your mind a few pages ago, suggesting churches should be forced to marry gays against their conscience.

1st Amendment? Who cares about that? Capitulate or else!

I didn't suggest they would be forced by law, but by public opinion.

Like I told you before, we don't live according to mob rule. You seem to think we do.

Public opinion is now "mob rule"? What rules? Nobody is making laws. Geez, are you this obtuse on purpose?

 

[Seawytch]

Historically, the percentage of Americans who said they had no religious affiliation (pollsters refer to this group as the "nones") has been very small -- hovering between 5 percent and 10 percent.

However, Putnam says the percentage of "nones" has now skyrocketed to between 30 percent and 40 percent among younger Americans.

Putnam calls this a "stunning development." He gave reporters a first glimpse of his data Tuesday at a conference on religion organized by the Pew Forum on Faith in Public Life.[...]

While these young "nones" may not belong to a church, they are not necessarily atheists.

"Many of them are people who would otherwise be in church," Putnam said. "They have the same attitidues and values as people who are in church, but they grew up in a period in which being religious meant being politically conservative, especially on social issues."

Putnam says that in the past two decades, many young people began to view organized religion as a source of "intolerance and rigidity and doctrinaire political views," and therefore stopped going to church.​

Young Americans Losing Their Religion

I'm 25 and I don't seem to think that way. Red herring much?

LOL, right because you represent the majority of young people. Honestly, now I understand this obtuseness. It's the idiocy of youth I guess.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Historically, the percentage of Americans who said they had no religious affiliation (pollsters refer to this group as the "nones") has been very small -- hovering between 5 percent and 10 percent.

However, Putnam says the percentage of "nones" has now skyrocketed to between 30 percent and 40 percent among younger Americans.

Putnam calls this a "stunning development." He gave reporters a first glimpse of his data Tuesday at a conference on religion organized by the Pew Forum on Faith in Public Life.[...]

While these young "nones" may not belong to a church, they are not necessarily atheists.

"Many of them are people who would otherwise be in church," Putnam said. "They have the same attitidues and values as people who are in church, but they grew up in a period in which being religious meant being politically conservative, especially on social issues."

Putnam says that in the past two decades, many young people began to view organized religion as a source of "intolerance and rigidity and doctrinaire political views," and therefore stopped going to church.​

Young Americans Losing Their Religion

I'm 25 and I don't seem to think that way. Red herring much?

LOL, right because you represent the majority of young people. Honestly, now I understand this obtuseness. It's the idiocy of youth I guess.

You don't know jack about us. Ha, now the namecalling starts. Running out of points are we?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I didn't suggest they would be forced by law, but by public opinion.

Like I told you before, we don't live according to mob rule. You seem to think we do.

Public opinion is now "mob rule"? What rules? Nobody is making laws. Geez, are you this obtuse on purpose?

Are you this stupid on purpose?

 

[rightwinger]

Historically, the percentage of Americans who said they had no religious affiliation (pollsters refer to this group as the "nones") has been very small -- hovering between 5 percent and 10 percent.

However, Putnam says the percentage of "nones" has now skyrocketed to between 30 percent and 40 percent among younger Americans.

Putnam calls this a "stunning development." He gave reporters a first glimpse of his data Tuesday at a conference on religion organized by the Pew Forum on Faith in Public Life.[...]

While these young "nones" may not belong to a church, they are not necessarily atheists.

"Many of them are people who would otherwise be in church," Putnam said. "They have the same attitidues and values as people who are in church, but they grew up in a period in which being religious meant being politically conservative, especially on social issues."

Putnam says that in the past two decades, many young people began to view organized religion as a source of "intolerance and rigidity and doctrinaire political views," and therefore stopped going to church.​

Young Americans Losing Their Religion

I'm 25 and I don't seem to think that way. Red herring much?

You will be an outlier as younger Americans question the hatred being directed at gays by our churches.
When gays were firmly in the closet, it was easy to direct hatred at them. Now that they are in the open, more and more Americans are saying........they are not so bad

The demonization of gays is driving people away from the Republican party. E same will happen to he more extremist churches