Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

Sil has finally slipped into the deep end and is in over her head.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How is it not a political decision? Was the Crusades a Religious or Political Decision? The various Inquisitions? Can you honestly deny The Mormon Church providing support for Prop. 8 in California or the activities of Monica Goodling in vetting candidates for US Attorney were only religious activities?

Uh, have you been to California? If you're travelling through anywhere east of 50 miles from the coastline, you'd better brush up on your fluent conversational spanish. The hispanic population in California is running about 99.999999999% staunch, unwavering catholic. I've even considered investing in the holy santos candle manufacturing trades there. It's only going to go up up up. They listen to the Pope. And the Pope/Vatican's stance on gay marriage is not going to change even by the end of this Century. And the reason for that is promoting homosexual cultures is one of the mortal sins that gets anyone, including the Vatican or the Pope [or perhaps especially the Vatican and the Pope] eternity in the Big Pit.

So if you're looking for the source of the 7 million people who lawfully restricted marriage in their state to not include gays or polygamists or minors [standing, valid law to this day, Windsor 2013], look no further than the I-5 corridor and all the little pockets of 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation anchor babies nestled all throughout that state. For every rich white liberal there, there are about 12-20 legal voting hispanics serving their every whim...

And they vote.

I live in California, that said your post above is not responsive to the issue I raised in response to another.

It's true, the central valley and the LA Basin South have a huge population of Spanish speaking residents, some resident ailiens, some here illegally, some natural born citizens and some Naturalized Citizens. Yes, most of them are Catholic and many conservative.

However, much like the population of African-Americans, Latinos cannot and should not be put in a box and stereotyped. Some are bigots, some are not; many speak Spanish, some do not; some engage in extra-marital sex, some have lesbain and gay relationships; some have college degrees, some do not.

 

[Silhouette]

I live in California, that said your post above is not responsive to the issue I raised in response to another.

It's true, the central valley and the LA Basin South have a huge population of Spanish speaking residents, some resident ailiens, some here illegally, some natural born citizens and some Naturalized Citizens. Yes, most of them are Catholic and many conservative.

However, much like the population of African-Americans, Latinos cannot and should not be put in a box and stereotyped. Some are bigots, some are not; many speak Spanish, some do not; some engage in extra-marital sex, some have lesbain and gay relationships; some have college degrees, some do not.

Um...hmmm...

Have you ever studied brainwashing? I think you're being a bit naive when it comes to the hispanic crowd. They are catholic first and "whatever" second. If the Pope or the Vatican or their parish priest assures them of their demise should they support the spread of a homosexual culture, they're going to kneejerk sit up and listen. Maybe you have the occasional rebellious gay or lesbian hispanic. But their CULTURE as a whole is one of the most conservative there is. If you're going for general rules and election statistics, try not to overlook that. It might tip the results a little...

 

[Silhouette]

Here's a thought. Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word? At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?

Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable. Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?

Excellent point. But I think Cecilie, that gays are after adopting kids. That's what this whole thing is about. Many states require "couples" to be married in order to adopt. So the churches and religion itself has to be "remade" in orter to legitimize this move into the orphanages to access the kids.

 

[RKMBrown]

Here's a thought. Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word? At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?

Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable. Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?

Excellent point. But I think Cecilie, that gays are after adopting kids. That's what this whole thing is about. Many states require "couples" to be married in order to adopt. So the churches and religion itself has to be "remade" in orter to legitimize this move into the orphanages to access the kids.

Why don't you just come out of the closet already.

 

[Silhouette]

Why don't you just come out of the closet already.

I have. I came out against gay marriage ages ago. Why don't you? You're the one that keeps making sure this thread gets bumped....*Bump*...

 

[RKMBrown]

Why don't you just come out of the closet already.

I have. I came out against gay marriage ages ago. Why don't you? You're the one that keeps making sure this thread gets bumped....*Bump*...

POS homophobic bigot.

 

[Silhouette]

Why don't you just come out of the closet already.

I have. I came out against gay marriage ages ago. Why don't you? You're the one that keeps making sure this thread gets bumped....*Bump*...

POS homophobic bigot.

Being against gay marriage doesn't make one a "homophobic bigot". Are you against polygamy? Bet you are. And if so, you're a polygaphobic bigot....and/or a hypocrite to boot.

 

[RKMBrown]

Why don't you just come out of the closet already.

I have. I came out against gay marriage ages ago. Why don't you? You're the one that keeps making sure this thread gets bumped....*Bump*...

POS homophobic bigot.

Being against gay marriage doesn't make one a "homophobic bigot". Are you against polygamy? Bet you are. And if so, you're a polygaphobic bigot....and/or a hypocrite to boot.

You've asked me that question 3 effing times in this thread. NO I AM NOT AGAINST POLYGAMY. Retard.

 

[Silhouette]

You've asked me that question 3 effing times in this thread. NO I AM NOT AGAINST POLYGAMY. Retard.

Well while we're on the topic, do you think polygamists have a fair shot in California now for a lawsuit to be able to legally marry...and possible thereafter to make churches, bakers and florists service their weddings in the interest of "equal rights"?

 

[RKMBrown]

You've asked me that question 3 effing times in this thread. NO I AM NOT AGAINST POLYGAMY. Retard.

Well while we're on the topic, do you think polygamists have a fair shot in California now for a lawsuit to be able to legally marry...and possible thereafter to make churches, bakers and florists service their weddings in the interest of "equal rights"?

No I don't think polygamists have a fair shot winning the right to legally marry in California or any other state.

Public accommodation laws appear to confuse you. Read up on them, then ask an educated question. If a church, baker, or florist offers a service to the public they can't discriminate based on skin color, etc. The list of things you can't discriminate differ from state to state.

 

[Silhouette]

No I don't think polygamists have a fair shot winning the right to legally marry in California or any other state.

Public accommodation laws appear to confuse you. Read up on them, then ask an educated question. If a church, baker, or florist offers a service to the public they can't discriminate based on skin color, etc. The list of things you can't discriminate differ from state to state.

"Skin color etc...." eh? Would "etc." mean behaviors? Just wondering because normally behaviors are regulated under local civil and penal codes/laws at the state level. Are you suggesting that we should now grant some behaviors that have organized themselves incompletely under a banner "LGBT" special civil rights? Yes?

And if so, after that which other behaviors would we [arbitrarily] exclude? Polygamy? I mean, we're talking about equality. Just one partial set of behaviors repugnant to the majority cannot be legally more favored than another repugnant to the majority.

ie: you're suggesting anarchy become legalized and federally protected. ie: you're advocating for the dissolving of democracy at its core...

 

[RKMBrown]

No I don't think polygamists have a fair shot winning the right to legally marry in California or any other state.

Public accommodation laws appear to confuse you. Read up on them, then ask an educated question. If a church, baker, or florist offers a service to the public they can't discriminate based on skin color, etc. The list of things you can't discriminate differ from state to state.

"Skin color etc...." eh? Would "etc." mean behaviors? Just wondering because normally behaviors are regulated under local civil and penal codes/laws at the state level. Are you suggesting that we should now grant some behaviors that have organized themselves incompletely under a banner "LGBT" special civil rights? Yes?

And if so, after that which other behaviors would we [arbitrarily] exclude? Polygamy? I mean, we're talking about equality. Just one partial set of behaviors repugnant to the majority cannot be legally more favored than another repugnant to the majority.

ie: you're suggesting anarchy become legalized and federally protected. ie: you're advocating for the dissolving of democracy at its core...

You're talking about tyranny of the majority to define morals, piss on people they don't like, and force others to adhere to your religious dogma. We were founded as a republic that defends minority groups not as a democracy that strings them up.

Getting married is a behavior. Do you want to live in a country that could, if the majority decided to, ban all marriages and only allow pregnancies that the government approved? Yes or no?

Where does your LUST for control over others end and your defense of your liberties begin?

 

[Silhouette]

You're talking about tyranny of the majority to define morals, piss on people they don't like, and force others to adhere to your religious dogma. We were founded as a republic that defends minority groups not as a democracy that strings them up.

Yes, what you call "a tyranny of the majority" when it comes to repugnant behaviors objectionable to the majority, other people call "local civil and penal codes". You folks got Lawrence v Texas through. Fine. However that doesn't mean you have the right to access minor kids from that starting point via marriage.

Here are some other behaviors the majority objects to that have a legal right to do in their own lives, but not to force the public to accomodate. Bulimics. Bulimics vomit routinely after they eat. It's harmful, like anal sex. But unlike anal sex, it doesn't spread the nation's worst epidemic since the 1800s. It hurts only them. And though it is a compulsive addiction, like any compulsive fetish that can harm, we aren't obligated, for example, to place vomit urns at every table at restaurants in order to accomodate these people's "eating orientations". They might organize, fuss and parade about how they are being discriminated against. After all, regular-eater are provided with napkins to wipe up after the way they eat. What's all this prejudice and bigotry of eatery owners refusing to accomodate ALL eating orientations?

Etc.

You see you cannot just claim that a certain, limited group of sex fetish behaviors [LGBT...but there are others not listed] get protections while other behaviors of different types of orientations don't.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".

Remember that people who thought themselves to be Christians slayed thousands of people trying to make those people turn to Christianity. Were those people true Christians? Hell no.

A person has no choice to be born American, or white, or black, or Hispanic, or anything else. No one would choose to have a child born with a disability.

Homosexuality IS a choice. Just as adultery, and promiscuity, and even a consenting man and woman living together sleeping in the same bed. Those are all choices that people make.

Interracial marriage is not a sin, a Christian marrying an unbeliever, that is considered a sin, according to what I know of the Bible. Others believe differently than I do, but we still search the Scriptures for the answers to all kinds of questions, the key is to keep on searching, for Christianity is a learning religion, and as we grow, we learn and we adapt. The basis for our faith is the one true constant. John 3:16, if you have that, and you truly believe that, you will want to learn more.

YOU don't think interracial marriage is a sin, but people did in large numbers and some still do. You feel justified in your bigotry just like they did. Same/Same.

Oh, and religion is a choice, being gay is not.

Just because people have been wrong about one thing doesn't mean they are wrong about EVERYTHING.

 

[Silhouette]

Some bulimics have such little control over their compulsive behaviors, they might completely insist and react defensively that they were 'born that way'. OCDs might feel the same way. Same with some drug addicts or "addictive personalities". It doesn't mean society changes its norms to accomodate the slant that has trouble changing itself. Particularly when one of those slants [anal sex] carries such a high mortality rate and spreads to other demographics in the general population.

Should gay people force churches to marry them? Should bulimics force eateries to place vomit urns near each table? I'd say "no" to both. And it seems 82% of people in the poll at the top of this page agree with me..

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Joe,
I could have posted your reply for you...first of all, it is homosexuals who are obsessed with anal sex. I can go the rest of my life without thinking about it, you guys are perpetually after it.

I am not a "phobe"...fecal play is not sanitary. You should have learned this in potty training. My completely normal reaction to your nasty habits are not "my mental problem" (with pseudoscience psychology rearing it's head once again).

Guy, first, I'm straight. I am although an atheist who fucking hates religion in all forms, so supporting the gays is just sticking a thumb in the eye of religious assholes. That's what's in it for me, in case you are interested.

So all your arguments are directed at simply ruining it for the religious.

 

[RKMBrown]

You're talking about tyranny of the majority to define morals, piss on people they don't like, and force others to adhere to your religious dogma. We were founded as a republic that defends minority groups not as a democracy that strings them up.

Yes, what you call "a tyranny of the majority" when it comes to repugnant behaviors objectionable to the majority, other people call "local civil and penal codes". You folks got Lawrence v Texas through. Fine. However that doesn't mean you have the right to access minor kids from that starting point via marriage.

Here are some other behaviors the majority objects to that have a legal right to do in their own lives, but not to force the public to accomodate. Bulimics. Bulimics vomit routinely after they eat. It's harmful, like anal sex. But unlike anal sex, it doesn't spread the nation's worst epidemic since the 1800s. It hurts only them. And though it is a compulsive addiction, like any compulsive fetish that can harm, we aren't obligated, for example, to place vomit urns at every table at restaurants in order to accomodate these people's "eating orientations". They might organize, fuss and parade about how they are being discriminated against. After all, regular-eater are provided with napkins to wipe up after the way they eat. What's all this prejudice and bigotry of eatery owners refusing to accomodate ALL eating orientations?

Etc.

You see you cannot just claim that a certain, limited group of sex fetish behaviors [LGBT...but there are others not listed] get protections while other behaviors of different types of orientations don't.

No, ya dumb ass pos homophobic racist ass hole. YOU ARE THE REPUGNANT ONE.

As for having access to minor kids... WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Getting married does not give one "ACCESS TO MINORS." You must be the dumbest homophobe on the planet.

 

[Silhouette]

No, ya dumb ass pos homophobic racist ass hole. YOU ARE THE REPUGNANT ONE.

As for having access to minor kids... WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Getting married does not give one "ACCESS TO MINORS." You must be the dumbest homophobe on the planet.

82% of the voters in the poll at the top of this page think that you are the asshole actually We live in a democracy where behaviors are regulated by the majority in penal and civil codes. As for homophobia, people have a right and a responsibility to fear a demographic/organization/cult that uses lawsuits, blackmail, threats, vitrole, tantrums and other means of force to claim "rights" that don't exist for them to access adoptable orphans....and which advocates having sex with the lower digestive tract, even when to do so means impressionable youth lured into their cult will predictably die of AIDS from it. Some fears are justified:

Fast Facts

• Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS

• 
  

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

116 pages here and still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any church anywhere has been, will be or ever will be forced to marry anyone.

Can you predict the future? It is not set in stone.