Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Kosh]

Uh-huh. So 'lawyers and legal scholars'....as long as we don't ask who they are.

Sigh....goodnight Kosh. I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree trying to get any useful information out of you

And there it is the far left makes claims about others not doing research and what others to research things, yet they will not do it themselves.

Another perfect example of a far left drone..

Far left mentality is to post known debunk information and expect others to prove them wrong!

Kosh is trolling in this thread too?

Yup. I just have him on ignore. He keeps posting the same reply, regardless of the topic or what he's replying to. You could offer him a detailed, thoughtful response with sources and links.......or give him GPS coordinates to Toy'R'Us, and you'll get the same bizarre reply about 'far left' and 'never admitting when they're wrong'.

He's just spamming. There's really no conversation to be had.

Yes showing that the far left can not admit when they are wrong is spamming!

All the far left has to do is own up to when they are wrong!

Yep he is just trolling.

And as always the far left is wrong!

 

[Syriusly]

And there it is the far left makes claims about others not doing research and what others to research things, yet they will not do it themselves.

Another perfect example of a far left drone..

Far left mentality is to post known debunk information and expect others to prove them wrong!

Kosh is trolling in this thread too?

Yup. I just have him on ignore. He keeps posting the same reply, regardless of the topic or what he's replying to. You could offer him a detailed, thoughtful response with sources and links.......or give him GPS coordinates to Toy'R'Us, and you'll get the same bizarre reply about 'far left' and 'never admitting when they're wrong'.

He's just spamming. There's really no conversation to be had.

Yes showing that the far left can not admit when they are wrong is spamming!

All the far left has to do is own up to when they are wrong!

Yep he is just trolling.

And as always the far left is wrong!

And yer just a troll

 

[Kosh]

Kosh is trolling in this thread too?

Yup. I just have him on ignore. He keeps posting the same reply, regardless of the topic or what he's replying to. You could offer him a detailed, thoughtful response with sources and links.......or give him GPS coordinates to Toy'R'Us, and you'll get the same bizarre reply about 'far left' and 'never admitting when they're wrong'.

He's just spamming. There's really no conversation to be had.

Yes showing that the far left can not admit when they are wrong is spamming!

All the far left has to do is own up to when they are wrong!

Yep he is just trolling.

And as always the far left is wrong!

And yer just a troll

Says the far left drone troll!

 

[Seawytch]

I heard something today on Rush Limbaugh, where as a person called in and asked Rush what he thought about him (the caller) as a person having to attend a meeting in Minnesota I think it was, and there the topic was concerning transgender people, and them being able to use the restroom that best suits their gender in which they feel that they are as human beings, but yet wasn't born as in their own unscientific opinions. Rush didn't respond to him with an answer, because he felt he was being set up on the question, but I will respond... I think that it is pushing the envelope way to far in these things, because If I send my grandchildren into a rest room that matches their gender in which they were born as, and a man who thinks of himself as a woman or vice-verse a woman whom thinks herself as a man tries to go in afterwards, then there's gonna be trouble is all I can say. This is a no-brainier folks, where as the answer is of course, NOPE, NOTTA, NOT or maybe better put as ABSOLUTELY NOT, that anyone would go into the girls restroom as a man, and would do this because somehow they would think of themselves as a woman when entering in ? Not happening is what I think most people would agree to when asked, but why the push now toward all these things ? Is it because of Obama that some are feeling empowered in such a radical or militant way now ?

Then you should probably invest in a porta potty to carry around because transgendered people are winning their lawsuits.

When someone is transitioning from male to female or female to male, they must live as the gender they wish to be re-assigned to before they can have the surgery. Do you really expect a man transitioning to a woman to use the men's bathroom?

Winning law suits?

So... you're saying that because you win a lawsuit, that this makes it right?

Interesting.

So when we remove your Leftist Judges and our judges DECREE that sodomy laws were there for a reason and reinstitute those laws, shoving your bleeding ass back into the closet, when we start winning the law suits... You're going to be perfectly fine with that?

My guess is that ya won't...

Sorry, but your brand of anti gay isn't going to be winning any lawsuits.

 

[Seawytch]

I heard something today on Rush Limbaugh, where as a person called in and asked Rush what he thought about him (the caller) as a person having to attend a meeting in Minnesota I think it was, and there the topic was concerning transgender people, and them being able to use the restroom that best suits their gender in which they feel that they are as human beings, but yet wasn't born as in their own unscientific opinions. Rush didn't respond to him with an answer, because he felt he was being set up on the question, but I will respond... I think that it is pushing the envelope way to far in these things, because If I send my grandchildren into a rest room that matches their gender in which they were born as, and a man who thinks of himself as a woman or vice-verse a woman whom thinks herself as a man tries to go in afterwards, then there's gonna be trouble is all I can say. This is a no-brainier folks, where as the answer is of course, NOPE, NOTTA, NOT or maybe better put as ABSOLUTELY NOT, that anyone would go into the girls restroom as a man, and would do this because somehow they would think of themselves as a woman when entering in ? Not happening is what I think most people would agree to when asked, but why the push now toward all these things ? Is it because of Obama that some are feeling empowered in such a radical or militant way now ?

Then you should probably invest in a porta potty to carry around because transgendered people are winning their lawsuits.

When someone is transitioning from male to female or female to male, they must live as the gender they wish to be re-assigned to before they can have the surgery. Do you really expect a man transitioning to a woman to use the men's bathroom?

A new restroom will be needed and should be added, so get ready for your taxes to sky rocket some more, because that is going to be the result of this for sure, so if everyone wants to have their taxes reach critical mass (already has), then keep it up because society will soon collapse under the weight of it all.

No, there won't be any "new restrooms" created. They use the restroom of the gender they are transitioning to. You get over it.

 

[Wildman]

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

as worded.., NO !!

Should Churches accomodate homosexual weddings?

FUCK........, NO !!

Pagan, blood letting, ritualistic, heathen churches ?

Haillll YESSsss !!,

that would be very appropriate...,

for homos.

 

[Seawytch]

Actually, I have lived through all this. Homosexuality is just a garden variety sexual perversion/dysfunction. The pity is, homosexuals have capital and this is a capitalist society, they are buying popular sentiment with Hollywood shows from Will and Grace to Philadelphia. I won't take this any were else, because I know just how jaded I will sound.

Replace "jaded" with "batshit crazy" and you'd have an amazing bit of self awareness going on.

 

[Wildman]

Actually, I have lived through all this. Homosexuality is just a garden variety sexual perversion/dysfunction. The pity is, homosexuals have capital and this is a capitalist society, they are buying popular sentiment with Hollywood shows from Will and Grace to Philadelphia. I won't take this any were else, because I know just how jaded I will sound.

Replace "jaded" with "batshit crazy" and you'd have an amazing bit of self awareness going on.

xxxxxxxxxxxx
your "hubpages" is nothing but pure 100% leftwing and speaking of "batshit crazy", you lefttards take the "Blue Ribbon" every time.

 

[beagle9]

Actually entering in a civil union is far more legally binding that a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it..

Well that's false. Just cross state lines and a civil union disappears. Civil Marriage though doesn't (as it normally functions).

Since you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union, why not be in one?

That again is false. The only "partner" that receives the SS benefits (assuming you mean Social Security) is a legal spouse in a Civil Marriage. Partners in a Civil Union get nothing.


>>>>

Not false, because the civil union idea was a work in progress (a compromise), so why couldn't it be worked out over time to the benefits of what the poster had spoken of ? I thought you all were about being progressive, but you want to annex an ancient thing that was created long ago in order to lift up, and to bind the man, woman, child family unit as one, and to nourish the traditions set forth in that structural family apparatus called marriage in which was set up to do these things under religious tenets. No they want to annex or join this thing in order to defeat it, because they will change the name, and then the complete meaning of it eventually, and therefore they will gut it. After that is done, they will be done with it, and then they will want to change it into something else as so not to be associated to what it was once, and for what it once stood for. History bares this out, and so this is just the beginning, but it will be sure to have an ending just as well.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Actually entering in a civil union is far more legally binding that a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it..

Well that's false. Just cross state lines and a civil union disappears. Civil Marriage though doesn't (as it normally functions).

Since you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union, why not be in one?

That again is false. The only "partner" that receives the SS benefits (assuming you mean Social Security) is a legal spouse in a Civil Marriage. Partners in a Civil Union get nothing.


>>>>

Once again the far left propaganda fear mongering machine is in over drive..

Sorry when people make false claims about the law I call them out on it.

Your attempt at ad hominem is noted, but for your information I'm not a member of the "far left", I've been a registered Republican since 1978.


>>>>

 

[beagle9]

Actually entering into a civil union is far more legally binding than a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it..

Says who?

Since you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union, why not be in one?

If they are exactly the same, why bother with a civil union? Why not just go for marriage? See, that's the rub. If they're genuinely identical, then there's no need for civil unions. But then again as this thread has shown time and time again it is not about "Marriage" it is about punishing the church..Gays and lesbians are seeking the right to marry under the law. The church I leave to you. Recognize gay marriage, don't recognize gay marriage, no one cares. As churches don't define marriage under the law.

It won't let me respond in quotes, so I will do something different to get my point across...

 

[beagle9]

The incentives the government gives in marriage as it has done in the past, is only dealing with the benefit side of marriage in which it offers only as an incentive package for a man and a woman who want to join together in holy matrimony, and to pro-create in order to form a family unit under the long held traditional tenets that are found under the religious ceremony called marriage, and that was to the only extent that government wanted to be involved in it. So no farther did it go as is being requested of them today, because the breech between Church and State could apply very easily here if doing so. The state does not enter into nor does it breech the meaning of the word itself, nor does it attempt to re-define or should it try and give a definition of marriage itself because of what could be found in what is written above I think. They don't do this because the separation of church and state prohibits the government from attempting to re-define or to enter into the marriage definition, and this by attempting to control the aspect of marriage or to redefine it according to the state, and this because of it being of course a religious ceremony that is protected as such. Therefore it is separated from government intrusion in this manor am I correct ? Summary- It is not that of a state thing in which it is defined by or is to be re-defined by or intruded upon by the state correct ?

Yes the state gives perks in order to support the pro-creation and stability of the family unit that is defined under the religious ceremonial definition of marriage, but it enters not into the re-defining of the word nor does it enter into the changing of the definition of marriage itself,, and why is this ? It is because that would be a violation of Church and State to do so (IMHO).

There are those who want to redefine marriage onto their terms, and they want the government to do this for them, and so I wonder do the benefits really matter in the bigger picture to them or is it all about what marriage will mean to this nation in the future in which matters the most to them ?

 

[Silhouette]

No, there won't be any "new restrooms" created. They use the restroom of the gender they are transitioning to. You get over it.

So a middle aged guy who claims to be "transitioning" (after all, the APA/CQR won't do any hard science on what that ACTUALLY means, other than patient self-reporting) can waltz into the women's bathroom at a venue where girls are, and there's nothing parents can do about that eh?

Welcome to the LGBT utopia folks!

 

[beagle9]

No, there won't be any "new restrooms" created. They use the restroom of the gender they are transitioning to. You get over it.

So a middle aged guy who claims to be "transitioning" (after all, the APA/CQR won't do any hard science on what that ACTUALLY means, other than patient self-reporting) can waltz into the women's bathroom at a venue where girls are, and there's nothing parents can do about that eh?

Welcome to the LGBT utopia folks!

It's amazing isn't it ?

 

[Silhouette]

The incentives the government gives in marriage as it has done in the past, is only dealing with the benefits of marriage in which it offers only as an incentive package for a man and a woman who want to join together in holy matrimony, and to pro-create in order to form a family unit under the long held traditional tenets that are found under the religious ceremony called marriage. The state does not enter into nor does it breech the meaning of the word itself, nor does it attempt to re-define or should it try and give a definition of marriage itself. They don't do this because the separation of church and state prohibits the government from attempting to re-define or to enter into the marriage definition...

Seawytch is right. I don't often say that. Your angle of argument would not win.

The state is in the business of regulating marriage for the sole reason, which is SECULAR of managing the environment in which children find themselves in their formative years.

The winning argument, and pretty much the only one beside opening precedent for polygamy and any other consenting adult in love, is that the fed has no business forcing states to incentivize a formative environment for children where it is guaranteed they will be missing one blood parent (at least) 100% of the time (gay marriage). Or where those children would be missing one of the formative-model genders 100% of the time. We live in a society where men and women interact on a daily basis. Any children in a gay-parent home would be missing their own gender as a role model, or the opposite one, 100% of the time. Therefore we can guarantee they will be psycho-socially maladjusted as compared to their peers from hetero marriages, 100% of the time.

THAT is the legal argument. The brass ring states hold out is male/female in order that this does not happen when and if children come along. Childless hetero couples do not mar the shine, shape and size of that brass ring. Gay ones do.

 

[1776]

Liberals don't like morals/standards, anything should go in their book.

Someone wants to marry their kid, someone wants to marry their pet, someone wants to marry multiple people, etc....is where they are leading us.

 

[mdk]

Liberals don't like morals/standards, anything should go in their book.

Someone wants to marry their kid, someone wants to marry their pet, someone wants to marry multiple people, etc....is where they are leading us.

What hogwash! Children and pets cannot consent to a marriage contract. I do however support the rights of those that wish to marry several people, if all the parties willingly consent of course. Your fear mongering does not have the same impact it once did mate.

 

[beagle9]

The incentives the government gives in marriage as it has done in the past, is only dealing with the benefits of marriage in which it offers only as an incentive package for a man and a woman who want to join together in holy matrimony, and to pro-create in order to form a family unit under the long held traditional tenets that are found under the religious ceremony called marriage. The state does not enter into nor does it breech the meaning of the word itself, nor does it attempt to re-define or should it try and give a definition of marriage itself. They don't do this because the separation of church and state prohibits the government from attempting to re-define or to enter into the marriage definition...

Seawytch is right. I don't often say that. Your angle of argument would not win.

The state is in the business of regulating marriage for the sole reason, which is SECULAR of managing the environment in which children find themselves in their formative years.

The winning argument, and pretty much the only one beside opening precedent for polygamy and any other consenting adult in love, is that the fed has no business forcing states to incentivize a formative environment for children where it is guaranteed they will be missing one blood parent (at least) 100% of the time (gay marriage). Or where those children would be missing one of the formative-model genders 100% of the time. We live in a society where men and women interact on a daily basis. Any children in a gay-parent home would be missing their own gender as a role model, or the opposite one, 100% of the time. Therefore we can guarantee they will be psycho-socially maladjusted as compared to their peers from hetero marriages, 100% of the time.

THAT is the legal argument. The brass ring states hold out is male/female in order that this does not happen when and if children come along. Childless hetero couples do not mar the shine, shape and size of that brass ring. Gay ones do.

The fact that the state has breached the separation between church and state on this issue, has created the very thing in which you are battling over now. Just wait, it will be a catalyst for the further destruction of the church in America, and that is what people don't understand. You see it is all about the bigger picture involved here also. Haven't you wondered why your not winning on your arguments yet Sil ?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The incentives the government gives in marriage as it has done in the past, is only dealing with the benefits of marriage in which it offers only as an incentive package for a man and a woman who want to join together in holy matrimony, and to pro-create in order to form a family unit under the long held traditional tenets that are found under the religious ceremony called marriage. The state does not enter into nor does it breech the meaning of the word itself, nor does it attempt to re-define or should it try and give a definition of marriage itself. They don't do this because the separation of church and state prohibits the government from attempting to re-define or to enter into the marriage definition...

Seawytch is right. I don't often say that. Your angle of argument would not win.

The state is in the business of regulating marriage for the sole reason, which is SECULAR of managing the environment in which children find themselves in their formative years.

The winning argument, and pretty much the only one beside opening precedent for polygamy and any other consenting adult in love, is that the fed has no business forcing states to incentivize a formative environment for children where it is guaranteed they will be missing one blood parent (at least) 100% of the time (gay marriage). Or where those children would be missing one of the formative-model genders 100% of the time. We live in a society where men and women interact on a daily basis. Any children in a gay-parent home would be missing their own gender as a role model, or the opposite one, 100% of the time. Therefore we can guarantee they will be psycho-socially maladjusted as compared to their peers from hetero marriages, 100% of the time.

THAT is the legal argument. The brass ring states hold out is male/female in order that this does not happen when and if children come along. Childless hetero couples do not mar the shine, shape and size of that brass ring. Gay ones do.

The fact that the state has breached the separation between church and state on this issue, has created the very thing in which you are battling over now. Just wait, it will be a catalyst for the further destruction of the church in America, and that is what people don't understand. You see it is all about the bigger picture involved here also. Haven't you wondered why your not winning on your arguments yet Sil ?

There is no "separation of church and state" and the 1st Amendment prohibits the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from establishing a state religion. It certainly doesn't apply to state marital laws which fall under the 10th Amendment.

 

[Silhouette]

Church and state have nothing to do with marriage. The state's interest is the welfare of children in their formative years..