Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[RKMBrown]

You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"

"gay marriage"

On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.

There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.

'


See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up


gay marriage

From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses. So it is contract based.

IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults. IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"

"gay marriage"

On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.




There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.

'


See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up


gay marriage

From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses. So it is contract based.

IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults. IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.

why any man would want more than one wife is beyond me, but I sure don't give a crap if others do.

 

[RKMBrown]

You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"

"gay marriage"

On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.




There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.

'


See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up


gay marriage

From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses. So it is contract based.

IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults. IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.

why any man would want more than one wife is beyond me, but I sure don't give a crap if others do.

Yeah I'm happy with my wife.. but I don't pretend to be the moral compass for others... so... in the ideal of liberty for all... let there be differences.

 

[Seawytch]

'


See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up


gay marriage

Religion is free to "define" marriage as it likes...in keeping with the first amendment. The government, whether you agree or not, issues marriage licenses. The government is not free to define marriage as YOU believe. In order to keep the fundamental right of civil marriage from a group of people, a detriment to society must be ascribed to allowing it. One cannot be, which is why marriage equality is winning in court.

Good luck getting the government "out of marriage". I imagine you're going to get even more laughter from your representative than you get for abolishing Public Accommodation laws.

 

[MaryL]

Gays are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.

 

[RKMBrown]

Gays are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.

Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Gays are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.

Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.

no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.

 

[RKMBrown]

Gays are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.

Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.

no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.

It used to be... then the authoritarians got their way and turned us from a constitutional republic that cherished liberty and free market capitalism into a socialist democracy ruled by this two headed democrat/republican snake that's fed by the tyranny of the majority. These folks think government is here to force everyone to follow their 51% majority moral view.

That's what happens when you change the senate from legislature bound (run by the States) to majority vote (17th amendment). That's what happens when you turn the Constitution upside down with the 14th amendment specifying that the government can take your life, liberty, and property at will, and the 16th stating that it can take your paycheck.

The authoritarians and marxists have won.. this ship is heading to the bottom. It's done put a fork in it.

 

[Silhouette]

Religion is free to "define" marriage as it likes...in keeping with the first amendment. The government, whether you agree or not, issues marriage licenses. The government is not free to define marriage as YOU believe. In order to keep the fundamental right of civil marriage from a group of people, a detriment to society must be ascribed to allowing it. One cannot be, which is why marriage equality is winning in court.

Good luck getting the government "out of marriage". I imagine you're going to get even more laughter from your representative than you get for abolishing Public Accommodation laws.

As it turns out, regular secular citizens are also free to define marriage as they like. Take a look at Windsor 2013 and get back to me. A state's discreet citizenry currently has the right to define marriage under the question of the new and weird "gay marriage" question. That may change in the future. But for right now it is Law and apparently always has been since the start of our country.

 

[Silhouette]

why any man would want more than one wife is beyond me, but I sure don't give a crap if others do.

Yes, but you're in the minority opinion. You're familiar with how a democracy works, right?

 

[RKMBrown]

why any man would want more than one wife is beyond me, but I sure don't give a crap if others do.

Yes, but you're in the minority opinion. You're familiar with how a democracy works, right?

What part of him not giving a crap makes you think he gives a crap about your homophobic bigoted crusade?

 

[Silhouette]

why any man would want more than one wife is beyond me, but I sure don't give a crap if others do.

Yes, but you're in the minority opinion. You're familiar with how a democracy works, right?

What part of him not giving a crap makes you think he gives a crap about your homophobic bigoted crusade?

He is involved in a debate and so am I. This isn't about him giving a crap. It's about him being legally wrong.

 

[RKMBrown]

why any man would want more than one wife is beyond me, but I sure don't give a crap if others do.

Yes, but you're in the minority opinion. You're familiar with how a democracy works, right?

What part of him not giving a crap makes you think he gives a crap about your homophobic bigoted crusade?

He is involved in a debate and so am I. This isn't about him giving a crap. It's about him being legally wrong.

What makes you think the law makes him give a crap about your homophobic bigoted crusade?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

why any man would want more than one wife is beyond me, but I sure don't give a crap if others do.

Yes, but you're in the minority opinion. You're familiar with how a democracy works, right?

What part of him not giving a crap makes you think he gives a crap about your homophobic bigoted crusade?

He is involved in a debate and so am I. This isn't about him giving a crap. It's about him being legally wrong.

How the hell am I legally wrong, and you're legally right, when we agree?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

why any man would want more than one wife is beyond me, but I sure don't give a crap if others do.

Yes, but you're in the minority opinion. You're familiar with how a democracy works, right?

What part of him not giving a crap makes you think he gives a crap about your homophobic bigoted crusade?

He is involved in a debate and so am I. This isn't about him giving a crap. It's about him being legally wrong.

What makes you think the law makes him give a crap about your homophobic bigoted crusade?

LOL he's CLEARLY misread my posts.

I think we've confused them because we are "conservatives" who think they should be able to "marry" no matter how personally disgusting and repulsive we find it.

 

[bripat9643]

You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"

"gay marriage"

On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.

There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.

'


See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up


gay marriage

From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses. So it is contract based.

IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults. IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.

Why should plural marraiges be illegal if all parties are consenting adults? What's the moral prinicipal involved here? How about incestuous marriages? Should they be illegal?

 

[RKMBrown]

You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"

"gay marriage"

On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.

There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.

'


See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up


gay marriage

From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses. So it is contract based.

IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults. IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.

Why should plural marraiges be illegal if all parties are consenting adults? What's the moral prinicipal involved here? How about incestuous marriages? Should they be illegal?

Agreed on the plural issue. What I said is they should be made legal. They were made illegal by the majority in most if not all states. The moral principle that was used was a moral code of particular churches that do not allow plural marriages. Nothing more than opinion of a particular group.

Incestuous marriages lead to increased numbers of genetic defects in children and abuse. So IMO yes, said couplings should be illegal. Thus, society has decided the harm done to these children and society on the whole should be avoided. It's sort of like safety violations. Even if no harm is done, the act of performing unsafe acts have been made illegal, one at a time.

 

[bripat9643]

You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"

"gay marriage"

On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.

There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.

'


See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up


gay marriage

From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses. So it is contract based.

IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults. IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.

Why should plural marraiges be illegal if all parties are consenting adults? What's the moral prinicipal involved here? How about incestuous marriages? Should they be illegal?

Agreed on the plural issue. What I said is they should be made legal. They were made illegal by the majority in most if not all states. The moral principle that was used was a moral code of particular churches that do not allow plural marriages. Nothing more than opinion of a particular group.

Incestuous marriages lead to increased numbers of genetic defects in children, and abuse, so IMO yes said couplings should be illegal. Thus, society has decided the harm done to these children and society on the whole should be avoided. It's sort of like safety violations. Even if no harm is done, the act of performing unsafe acts have been made illegal, one at a time.

That would only be an issue if facilitating reproduction was the purpose of marriage. However, homosexuals insist that reproduction has nothing to do with marraigee. Once you admit that it does have something to do with marriage, your arguments for "gay marriage" all go out the window.

 

[Silhouette]

You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"

"gay marriage"

On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.

There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.

'


See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up


gay marriage

From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses. So it is contract based.

IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults. IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.

Why should plural marraiges be illegal if all parties are consenting adults? What's the moral prinicipal involved here? How about incestuous marriages? Should they be illegal?

They're "icky" or "might harm the children involved" [see my lastest post that has pictures]. So, naturally, the majority may object to them....or so the [selective] "logic" goes with the LGBT cult.

 

[Silhouette]

Gays are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.

Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.

no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.

Gays have no right to marry. Blind people have no right to drive. You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking. Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother". And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.