Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Seawytch]

When you can explain why government marriage is a right that not everyone can get, only people who pair up, then get back to me. In the mean time, what you said is just stupid.

Why is it only two people? Because that is the way the laws are written. Don't like 'em, sue to change them. Good luck.



What I said is 100% true. Turner v. Safley.

Simple logic isn't your thing, is it? I didn't addressing the laws, I addressed your bull crap statement that marriage is a "right." You cannot have a 'right' that is only available to some people. You certainly cannot have a right that is dependent on another person. No one can get marriage themselves, someone else has to enable them to get it. It is not a right since clearly everyone cannot get it.



You do like the courts to legislate though, don't you?

Look up fundamental rights. Marriage IS one despite your insistence that it is not.

 

[Andylusion]

"""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!

Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...

In other words you have no argument left. We have shot this argument down a hundred times, and like a mindless parrot, you have repeated the same thing over and over.

Just a robot.... "Dur Race equals homosexuality.... dur race equals homosexuality..... dur race equals homosexuality..... dur race equals homosexuality."

If that's all you've got....... then you have nothing. Repeating nothing over and over, makes you a waste of time to talk to. Being a waste, is really sad. You should either find a topic you actually have something of value to say, or find a better argument for this topic. I don't care either way, because this is the very last response from me to you, if you have nothing else to offer.

 

[Seawytch]

"""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!

Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...

what BIBLE VERSE ??? EVEN MOSES HAD A BLACK WIFE!!!! WISE UP!!! STOP THE LIES FROM THE PIT OF HELL!!! PLACE YOUR FAITH AND TRUST IN GOD AND GOD'S WORD ALONE NOT IN ANY MAN OR EVEN ANY man created "church"!!!

I've already posted the scripture used by anti miscegenationists. Go look or use your google.

 

[Seawytch]

"""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!

Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...

In other words you have no argument left. We have shot this argument down a hundred times, and like a mindless parrot, you have repeated the same thing over and over.



Just a robot.... "Dur Race equals homosexuality.... dur race equals homosexuality..... dur race equals homosexuality..... dur race equals homosexuality."



If that's all you've got....... then you have nothing. Repeating nothing over and over, makes you a waste of time to talk to. Being a waste, is really sad. You should either find a topic you actually have something of value to say, or find a better argument for this topic. I don't care either way, because this is the very last response from me to you, if you have nothing else to offer.

Truth make you uncomfortable? Don't like being akin to racists of yore? Oh well...

 

[GISMYS]

Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...

what BIBLE VERSE ??? EVEN MOSES HAD A BLACK WIFE!!!! WISE UP!!! STOP THE LIES FROM THE PIT OF HELL!!! PLACE YOUR FAITH AND TRUST IN GOD AND GOD'S WORD ALONE NOT IN ANY MAN OR EVEN ANY man created "church"!!!

I've already posted the scripture used by anti miscegenationists. Go look or use your google.

SO,YOU HAVE NO SCRIPTURE BACKING!!! JUST SATAN'S LIES!!!and you??

 

[kaz]

Why is it only two people? Because that is the way the laws are written. Don't like 'em, sue to change them. Good luck.



What I said is 100% true. Turner v. Safley.

Simple logic isn't your thing, is it? I didn't addressing the laws, I addressed your bull crap statement that marriage is a "right." You cannot have a 'right' that is only available to some people. You certainly cannot have a right that is dependent on another person. No one can get marriage themselves, someone else has to enable them to get it. It is not a right since clearly everyone cannot get it.



You do like the courts to legislate though, don't you?

Look up fundamental rights. Marriage IS one despite your insistence that it is not.

We aren't talking about marriage, we are talking about government marriage, maybe that's the source of your confusion.

That you have a fundamental right to other people's property, recognition by government and party favors and that a fundamental right of government is something you cannot get on your own but only through another person is beyond ridiculous.

However, the idea that you can marry someone in a church or privately and have a fundamental right to be left alone by government would certainly be true.

 

[Seawytch]

what BIBLE VERSE ??? EVEN MOSES HAD A BLACK WIFE!!!! WISE UP!!! STOP THE LIES FROM THE PIT OF HELL!!! PLACE YOUR FAITH AND TRUST IN GOD AND GOD'S WORD ALONE NOT IN ANY MAN OR EVEN ANY man created "church"!!!

I've already posted the scripture used by anti miscegenationists. Go look or use your google.

SO,YOU HAVE NO SCRIPTURE BACKING!!! JUST SATAN'S LIES!!!and you??

I don't because I don't believe in using a religious text to justify bigotry. The anti miscegenationists had lots of them. (Kinda like you do)

 

[Seawytch]

Simple logic isn't your thing, is it? I didn't addressing the laws, I addressed your bull crap statement that marriage is a "right." You cannot have a 'right' that is only available to some people. You certainly cannot have a right that is dependent on another person. No one can get marriage themselves, someone else has to enable them to get it. It is not a right since clearly everyone cannot get it.







You do like the courts to legislate though, don't you?

Look up fundamental rights. Marriage IS one despite your insistence that it is not.

We aren't talking about marriage, we are talking about government marriage, maybe that's the source of your confusion.



That you have a fundamental right to other people's property, recognition by government and party favors and that a fundamental right of government is something you cannot get on your own but only through another person is beyond ridiculous.



However, the idea that you can marry someone in a church or privately and have a fundamental right to be left alone by government would certainly be true.

Yeah, I don't think the SCOTUS made that distinction in the MANY times they declared marriage a fundamental right.

 

[bendog]

When you can explain why government marriage is a right that not everyone can get, only people who pair up, then get back to me. In the mean time, what you said is just stupid.

Why is it only two people? Because that is the way the laws are written. Don't like 'em, sue to change them. Good luck.

What I said is 100% true. Turner v. Safley.

Simple logic isn't your thing, is it? I didn't addressing the laws, I addressed your bull crap statement that marriage is a "right." You cannot have a 'right' that is only available to some people. You certainly cannot have a right that is dependent on another person. No one can get marriage themselves, someone else has to enable them to get it. It is not a right since clearly everyone cannot get it.

You do like the courts to legislate though, don't you?

We have a right to contract, and that takes at least two.

 

[Andylusion]

Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...

In other words you have no argument left. We have shot this argument down a hundred times, and like a mindless parrot, you have repeated the same thing over and over.



Just a robot.... "Dur Race equals homosexuality.... dur race equals homosexuality..... dur race equals homosexuality..... dur race equals homosexuality."



If that's all you've got....... then you have nothing. Repeating nothing over and over, makes you a waste of time to talk to. Being a waste, is really sad. You should either find a topic you actually have something of value to say, or find a better argument for this topic. I don't care either way, because this is the very last response from me to you, if you have nothing else to offer.

Truth make you uncomfortable? Don't like being akin to racists of yore? Oh well...

I don't care either way. At this point, what I do care about is you wasting my time with your pathetically empty and useless posts. You are hereby muted forever. You can waste other people's time from here on.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

"""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!

Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...

You are a one trick pony. All you know is that interracial is the same as homosexual. And that is a false equivalency. Race is not a choice, Homosexuality is a choice. Again, Huge difference there.

No one chooses to be born white, black, Hispanic, or albino. A person chooses to be a homosexual, and what Gis says is true. No true church which belongs to God would ever perform a homosexual wedding. Any church which does, is not a true Christian church.

 

[kaz]

Look up fundamental rights. Marriage IS one despite your insistence that it is not.

We aren't talking about marriage, we are talking about government marriage, maybe that's the source of your confusion.



That you have a fundamental right to other people's property, recognition by government and party favors and that a fundamental right of government is something you cannot get on your own but only through another person is beyond ridiculous.



However, the idea that you can marry someone in a church or privately and have a fundamental right to be left alone by government would certainly be true.

Yeah, I don't think the SCOTUS made that distinction in the MANY times they declared marriage a fundamental right.

OMG, the supreme court said government marriage is a fundamental right? Why didn't you say so? Well, then it certainly must be one.

 

[kaz]

Why is it only two people? Because that is the way the laws are written. Don't like 'em, sue to change them. Good luck.

What I said is 100% true. Turner v. Safley.

Simple logic isn't your thing, is it? I didn't addressing the laws, I addressed your bull crap statement that marriage is a "right." You cannot have a 'right' that is only available to some people. You certainly cannot have a right that is dependent on another person. No one can get marriage themselves, someone else has to enable them to get it. It is not a right since clearly everyone cannot get it.

You do like the courts to legislate though, don't you?

We have a right to contract, and that takes at least two.

Begging the question

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So you want to deny all sinners the right to marry.
Sure, right.
Ain't your job or business to determine who is a sinner and who isn't you moron.
That is up to God.
Something about do not judge.

There is no "right" to government marriage, it is a privilege. If it were a "right" then it would be open to everyone. Something you are not offering either. Man/woman, two people, either way it's discrimination. You aren't changing the nature of the beast, just tweaking the qualification rules.

Incorrect:

State bans on the licensing of same-sex marriage significantly burden the fundamental right to marry[.]
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-5003.pdf

Marriage is not only a right but a fundamental right, recognized and codified by the Constitution.

Moreover, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires the states to afford all persons access to state laws, including marriage law. Marriage is contract law written by the states, these laws are designed to accommodate two equal partners in the marriage contract – same- or opposite sex. We know this to be a fact because in 20 states and the District of Columbia same-sex couples have entered into marriage contracts – marriage unaltered, unchanged, and not 'redefined.'

 

[kaz]

Moreover, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires the states to afford all persons access to state laws, including marriage law.

Yes, gays have always had that. Being gay never changed who someone can marry, so the 14th doesn't apply. Sorry, Charlie, but only good tasting tuna get to be Starkist.

The "fundamental right" in government marriage is the fundamental right of government to ubiquitous power. Government divides people and then pits them against each other. Government marriage is yet another way to do that, so of course government wants a monopoly on defining marriage.

 

[bendog]

Simple logic isn't your thing, is it? I didn't addressing the laws, I addressed your bull crap statement that marriage is a "right." You cannot have a 'right' that is only available to some people. You certainly cannot have a right that is dependent on another person. No one can get marriage themselves, someone else has to enable them to get it. It is not a right since clearly everyone cannot get it.

You do like the courts to legislate though, don't you?

We have a right to contract, and that takes at least two.

Begging the question

What question? You said marriage couldn't be a right because it required two people, and I assume you mean that a right must attach to individuals. Or did I misunderstand?

 

[bendog]

"""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!

Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...

You are a one trick pony. All you know is that interracial is the same as homosexual. And that is a false equivalency. Race is not a choice, Homosexuality is a choice. Again, Huge difference there.

No one chooses to be born white, black, Hispanic, or albino. A person chooses to be a homosexual, and what Gis says is true. No true church which belongs to God would ever perform a homosexual wedding. Any church which does, is not a true Christian church.

At least you're no longer hiding your true motivations by hanging yourself from a cross.

 

[kaz]

We have a right to contract, and that takes at least two.

Begging the question

What question. You said marriage couldn't be a right because it required two people, and I assume you mean that a right must attach to individuals. Or did I misunderstand.

You don't have a right to a contract. You can get a contract if 2 or more people agree to one and it meets government contractual regulations and you follow government processes.

It's no different than marriage, which is why it was begging the question. You assumed the truth of your own position and repeated the assertion.

 

[bendog]

Begging the question

What question. You said marriage couldn't be a right because it required two people, and I assume you mean that a right must attach to individuals. Or did I misunderstand.

You don't have a right to a contract. You can get a contract if 2 or more people agree to one and it meets government contractual regulations and you follow government processes.

It's no different than marriage, which is why it was begging the question. You assumed the truth of your own position and repeated the assertion.

Not at all. I have a right to enter into a contract with any agreeable person, and the state may not interfere by treating me unequally to anyone else. We're merely back to the your premise that the state may treat GLBT's differently. You are wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We aren't talking about marriage, we are talking about government marriage, maybe that's the source of your confusion.



That you have a fundamental right to other people's property, recognition by government and party favors and that a fundamental right of government is something you cannot get on your own but only through another person is beyond ridiculous.



However, the idea that you can marry someone in a church or privately and have a fundamental right to be left alone by government would certainly be true.

Yeah, I don't think the SCOTUS made that distinction in the MANY times they declared marriage a fundamental right.

OMG, the supreme court said government marriage is a fundamental right? Why didn't you say so? Well, then it certainly must be one.

Your contempt for the Constitution and its case law is noted, as is your contempt for the Supreme Court and its interpretive authority granted it by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI of the United States Constitution, and the original intent of the Framers.

Which raises the question as to why you bother to participate at all, except to exhibit your ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution and its case law, and to be a tedious dullard and troll.