Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Cecilie1200]

2300 posts and no evidence whatsoever that gay folks want to force government to mandate a law to force churches to marry gay folk.

Because the premise is pure folly to begin with.

Ideas aren't bounded within national borders. What happens elsewhere lends legitimacy to reforms in other places. We saw that with the crazy notion that marriage could be redefined to include two people of the same sex. It started somewhere, scored a success and so was launched elsewhere.

The first legal challenge to the Church of England's ban on same-sex marriage was launched today - months before the first gay wedding can take place.

Gay father Barrie Drewitt-Barlow declared: 'I want to go into my church and marry my husband.' He added: 'The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the Church.'​

FFS, who would have thought that homosexuals would be crazy enough to sue photographers to force them to photograph homosexual "weddings" or crazy enough to sue bakers to force them to bake cakes for homosexual "weddings."

Give it time. There's some crazy homosexual out there and this suing of a church will also come to pass here in the US.

What happens elsewhere lends legitimacy ONLY if the "elsewhere" is somewhere we want to emulate. They kill homosexuals in the Middle East, but I don't think that lends any legitimacy to the idea here.

If I wanted to live in the UK, I would do so. I have no desire to live there, which means I have no desire to have my country turn into the UK.

 

[Rikurzhen]

What happens elsewhere lends legitimacy ONLY if the "elsewhere" is somewhere we want to emulate. They kill homosexuals in the Middle East, but I don't think that lends any legitimacy to the idea here.

If I wanted to live in the UK, I would do so. I have no desire to live there, which means I have no desire to have my country turn into the UK.

And I have no desire to have my country turn into Scandinavia and yet their homosexual marriage idea has burrowed in here like a tick.

Look, plenty of homosexuals hate religions because those religions have as fundamental doctrine that homosexuality is a sin. Of that group there is some proportion which is intent on sticking a shiv into Religion whenever they can and forcing Churches to submit to the homosexual agenda would bring immense feelings of satisfaction.

Look at what the homosexuals who sued the photographers and bakers were doing - they set out to compel people who wanted to avoid involvement with homosexual "weddings" to bend to the wishes of the homosexuals. Why on Earth do you believe that this mindset of forcing people to do what they object to won't be extended to Churches? Homosexuals have already shown that they're willing to force small business people to bend over and take it up the ass.

Rape of liberty is Mission #1. Churches won't be immune. Homosexuals have already demonstrated that they're willing to rape people's Freedom of Association so why would they put Freedom of Religion out of bounds?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh.

It's over, Rik. The end game is underway. You will live in a country with marriage equality if you stay in the United States.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Sigh.

It's over, Rik. The end game is underway. You will live in a country with marriage equality if you stay in the United States.

Homosexuals have always had marriage equality in the US. They were always free to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals, and throughout history many homosexuals did exercise their right to marry.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Rikurzhen, the USA is not the UK.

And yet the insane notion of homosexuals marrying others homosexuals took root first in Scandinavia, but somehow found its way over to North America.

Baker v. Nelson was in the 1970 in the USA.

Hawaii Court action 1990's

Massachusetts recognized Same Sex Civil Marriages 2004.


"Scandinavia" (i.e. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark) were 2009, 2009, and 2012 respectively.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Sigh.

It's over, Rik. The end game is underway. You will live in a country with marriage equality if you stay in the United States.

Homosexuals have always had marriage equality in the US. They were always free to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals, and throughout history many homosexuals did exercise their right to marry.

I wonder why SCOTUS just issued a vote of confidence July 18, 2014 on the law in Utah limiting marriage to one man and one woman?

They upheld the stay Utah's AG pled for.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS did nothing of the sort, merely allowing a stay so that Utah can appeal its lost case.

No more "just once more" because all the antis now will do is lie.

Any further discussion with them only emboldens their nonsense and is worthless.

 

[BillyP]

Sigh.

It's over, Rik. The end game is underway. You will live in a country with marriage equality if you stay in the United States.

Homosexuals have always had marriage equality in the US. They were always free to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals, and throughout history many homosexuals did exercise their right to marry.

If you're against gay marriage, just don't marry a gay person. Pretty simple really.

 

[Silhouette]

When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.

No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

No because whereas race is protected under the 14th Amendment specifically, just some odd sexual behaviors and who one chooses to practice them with are not. Marriage is defined by the states and my only be tampered with as to that definition by specific protections under the 14th.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Sigh.

It's over, Rik. The end game is underway. You will live in a country with marriage equality if you stay in the United States.

Homosexuals have always had marriage equality in the US. They were always free to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals, and throughout history many homosexuals did exercise their right to marry.

If you're against gay marriage, just don't marry a gay person. Pretty simple really.

If you're against bestiality, don't wine and dine a goat.

 

[Gadawg73]

Friend of mine is an ordained preacher. He wants the the right to be able to marry gay couples.
Who is standing up for his religious rights?
This is nothing to do with protecting the "sanctity of marriage" or any rights.
This is ALL to do with some folks do not like gay folks and have to have someone to put down and treat as second class citizens.

 

[Silhouette]

Friend of mine is an ordained preacher. He wants the the right to be able to marry gay couples.
Who is standing up for his religious rights?
This is nothing to do with protecting the "sanctity of marriage" or any rights.
This is ALL to do with some folks do not like gay folks and have to have someone to put down and treat as second class citizens.

This may just come down to Windsor 2013 anyway. And according to its constitutional findings, only 3 states have legal gay marriage. So? This question will apply there. And only thereafter in the states that the cult of LGBT manages to convince that role-playing "mom and dad" by two [or more once polygamy comes along on the precedent] people of the same gender is "a great idea for society".

This may be a moot argument by the end of next year.

 

[Silhouette]

If you're against gay marriage, just don't marry a gay person. Pretty simple really.

Well except that marriage often comes with a bonus of the couple or more [polygamy] being able to adopt orphans. The orphans' civil rights come first [childrens' rights always do in the US]: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

 

[BillyP]

If you're against gay marriage, just don't marry a gay person. Pretty simple really.

Well except that marriage often comes with a bonus of the couple or more [polygamy] being able to adopt orphans. The orphans' civil rights come first [childrens' rights always do in the US]: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

Because nothing bad ever happens to kids adopted by heteros?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sigh.

It's over, Rik. The end game is underway. You will live in a country with marriage equality if you stay in the United States.

Homosexuals have always had marriage equality in the US. They were always free to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals, and throughout history many homosexuals did exercise their right to marry.

I wonder why SCOTUS just issued a vote of confidence July 18, 2014 on the law in Utah limiting marriage to one man and one woman?

They upheld the stay Utah's AG pled for.

So now you're just going to lie.

 

[Andylusion]

Friend of mine is an ordained preacher. He wants the the right to be able to marry gay couples.
Who is standing up for his religious rights?
This is nothing to do with protecting the "sanctity of marriage" or any rights.
This is ALL to do with some folks do not like gay folks and have to have someone to put down and treat as second class citizens.

Anyone can marry anything. I can become and ordained minister and marry a monkey and a rat. I just can't enforce my 'marriage' on the rest of society, by forcing everyone to recognize my idiot stupidity.

But any religious idiot, can marry anything according to their own views.

Authentic Marriage is between a man and a women, as it has been for thousands of years of human history.

Your idiotic fool of a 'preacher' can 'marry' anyone he wants. But the moment he tries to force everyone to accept his stupidity, no. No where in the constitution does it say "you have the right to follow your religious beliefs *AND* force everyone else to accept them.".

You can make up Scientology and marry any rodent you want. When Scientology starts trying to force it's stupidity on the rest of us, I will oppose that just as much I as oppose your "preacher" buddy of yours.

No, you can go off and do whatever you want on your own. But no, you don't have to right to force everyone else to accept it.

Hint: I'm not going to. No matter what law you pass, I'm not recognizing this idiotic stupidity. A man and a man, are not married, no matter what you people do.

 

[Inevitable]

Of course not.

 

[Inevitable]

If you're against gay marriage, just don't marry a gay person. Pretty simple really.

Well except that marriage often comes with a bonus of the couple or more [polygamy] being able to adopt orphans. The orphans' civil rights come first [childrens' rights always do in the US]: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

I don't think any orphan would choose foster care or statute careover homosexual parents. Plus what civil rights are you talking about.

 

[bendog]

We're not stopping till Androw's church must either marry pedophiles to children in satanic rites or not only lose tax exempt status but also have members endure incarceration with the most barbaric criminals we can find. We'll stop at nothing. (evil laughter.)

 

[Seawytch]

We're not stopping till Androw's church must either marry pedophiles to children in satanic rites or not only lose tax exempt status but also have members endure incarceration with the most barbaric criminals we can find. We'll stop at nothing. (evil laughter.)

Androw's church may some day see the writing on the wall and stop being anti gay. Will he leave it when the time comes?