Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Katzndogz]

Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect. It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply. A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.

 

[Skylar]

Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect. It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply. A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.

The basics of right and wrong....according to who?

(Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)

 

[Katzndogz]

Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect. It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply. A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.

The basics of right and wrong....according to who?

(Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)

According to normal people. What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do? Would that make it right? In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged. Is that right because it's lawful? Of course not. Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful. Not right.

 

[Skylar]

Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect. It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply. A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.

The basics of right and wrong....according to who?

(Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)

According to normal people. What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do? Would that make it right? In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged. Is that right because it's lawful? Of course not. Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful. Not right.

'Normal people' according to who? See, defining a subjective term with another subjective term is just a delaying tactic. You'll eventually have to cite a source that isn't purely speculative.

And given that a strong majority of the nation supports gay marriage by margins of between 12 and 19 points, you may want to be careful how you subjectively define 'normal people'.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You DO understand that if we used the word "Refrigerator" to convey "Perversion", that in short order, the "Refrigerators" would then only demand that we use the word: Bicycle, which in short order, the bicycles would demand that we call them "Peach-tea", which in no time at all the Peach-Teas would demand we refer to them as "Candle-wax" ... .

Anything gettin' through here?

This is how we ended up with SO MANY words to describe "Leftists...": Communists, Socialists, Progressives, "No-Name" Liberals. You can change the word that describes them as many times as ya like. In NO WAY does it ever change the CONCEPT which such IDENTIFIES.

FTR: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in many states; mine included, marriage is between two consenting adults regardless of their gender. Soon to be all states. Stomp your feet and wring hands all you wish. Gays are getting married despite your whiny and convoluted protests. Get over it. Or don't.

I am sure in your next response you'll claim sort of victory and note it. lol

You're speaking of temporal, illicitly gained legalities... I'm speaking of truth.

In truth: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.f.

In truth- in 32 states marriage is the joining of two people of either gender.

 

[Syriusly]

Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect. It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply. A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.

The basics of right and wrong....according to who?

(Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)

According to normal people. What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do? Would that make it right? In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged. Is that right because it's lawful? Of course not. Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful. Not right.

And of course that is your opinion.

In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.

Treating people equally- that is right.

 

[dblack]

Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect. It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply. A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.

The basics of right and wrong....according to who?

(Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)

According to normal people. What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do? Would that make it right? In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged. Is that right because it's lawful? Of course not. Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful. Not right.

And of course that is your opinion.

In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.

Treating people equally- that is right.

Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.

 

[Seawytch]

Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect. It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply. A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.

The basics of right and wrong....according to who?

(Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)

According to normal people. What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do? Would that make it right? In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged. Is that right because it's lawful? Of course not. Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful. Not right.

And of course that is your opinion.

In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.

Treating people equally- that is right.

Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.

Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.

There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.

 

[Seawytch]

And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with [homosexuals] ... ?

That would be: The Homosexuals...

So the legal institution of gay marriage is....

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman!

Maybe of you say it a dozen more times it will become reality.

Only if he clicks his heels three times...

 

[Kosh]

Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect. It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply. A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.

The basics of right and wrong....according to who?

(Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)

According to normal people. What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do? Would that make it right? In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged. Is that right because it's lawful? Of course not. Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful. Not right.

And of course that is your opinion.

In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.

Treating people equally- that is right.

Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.

Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.

There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.

And the far left talking points come out !

Nope! And always incorrect, wrong, not even close..

Yet they still push this debunked talking point as a "fact"..

 

[Kosh]

Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect. It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply. A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.

The basics of right and wrong....according to who?

(Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)

According to normal people. What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do? Would that make it right? In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged. Is that right because it's lawful? Of course not. Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful. Not right.

And of course that is your opinion.

In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.

Treating people equally- that is right.

Another far left talking point based on propaganda and not in reality.

 

[dblack]

Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect. It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply. A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.

The basics of right and wrong....according to who?

(Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)

According to normal people. What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do? Would that make it right? In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged. Is that right because it's lawful? Of course not. Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful. Not right.

And of course that is your opinion.

In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.

Treating people equally- that is right.

Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.

Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.

There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.

??? Just not the same as married people. How does that fit in your head?

 

[Seawytch]

The basics of right and wrong....according to who?

(Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)

According to normal people. What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do? Would that make it right? In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged. Is that right because it's lawful? Of course not. Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful. Not right.

And of course that is your opinion.

In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.

Treating people equally- that is right.

Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.

Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.

There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.

And the far left talking points come out !

Nope! And always incorrect, wrong, not even close..

Yet they still push this debunked talking point as a "fact"..

Despite realizing that is way beyond your abilities to do so, care to explain what I'm wrong about?

What is it you find to be a "debunked talking point"?

 

[dblack]

According to normal people. What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do? Would that make it right? In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged. Is that right because it's lawful? Of course not. Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful. Not right.

And of course that is your opinion.

In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.

Treating people equally- that is right.

Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.

Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.

There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.

And the far left talking points come out !

Nope! And always incorrect, wrong, not even close..

Yet they still push this debunked talking point as a "fact"..

Despite realizing that is way beyond your abilities to do so, care to explain what I'm wrong about?

What is it you find to be a "debunked talking point"?

Wondering that myself. I'm not sure how it can be a talking point, as this issue rarely comes up.

Marriage should be handled as any other contract, and infer no special rights to participants.

 

[Seawytch]

The basics of right and wrong....according to who?

(Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)

According to normal people. What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do? Would that make it right? In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged. Is that right because it's lawful? Of course not. Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful. Not right.

And of course that is your opinion.

In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.

Treating people equally- that is right.

Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.

Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.

There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.

??? Just not the same as married people. How does that fit in your head?

It fits quite easily. Single people are not denied marriage are they? If they want the tax breaks that come with being married, they can get married. There is no discrimination.

I get a tax break for owning a home. Is that discriminating against people that don't own a home?

 

[dblack]

According to normal people. What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do? Would that make it right? In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged. Is that right because it's lawful? Of course not. Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful. Not right.

And of course that is your opinion.

In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.

Treating people equally- that is right.

Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.

Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.

There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.

??? Just not the same as married people. How does that fit in your head?

It fits quite easily. Single people are not denied marriage are they? If they want the tax breaks that come with being married, they can get married. There is no discrimination.

I get a tax break for owning a home. Is that discriminating against people that don't own a home?

Yes. It's exactly the same sort of thing, and it's a gross abuse of the taxation power. We grant government the power to collect taxes to fund its legitimate functions, not to serve as tool for social engineering.

 

[mdk]

And of course that is your opinion.

In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.

Treating people equally- that is right.

Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.

Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.

There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.

And the far left talking points come out !

Nope! And always incorrect, wrong, not even close..

Yet they still push this debunked talking point as a "fact"..

Despite realizing that is way beyond your abilities to do so, care to explain what I'm wrong about?

What is it you find to be a "debunked talking point"?

Wondering that myself. I'm not sure how it can be a talking point, as this issue rarely comes up.

Marriage should be handled as any other contract, and infer no special rights to participants.

Though I do admire and support the spirit of getting the government out of the marriage business altogether it really isn't going to happen any time soon. In fact, the most socially conservatives are not even pushing seriously for that to come to pass. Until the government is removed from marriage; which I don't see ever happening, then marriage access and the rights entailed with it should be granted to same sex couples.

 

[dblack]

Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.

Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.

There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.

And the far left talking points come out !

Nope! And always incorrect, wrong, not even close..

Yet they still push this debunked talking point as a "fact"..

Despite realizing that is way beyond your abilities to do so, care to explain what I'm wrong about?

What is it you find to be a "debunked talking point"?

Wondering that myself. I'm not sure how it can be a talking point, as this issue rarely comes up.

Marriage should be handled as any other contract, and infer no special rights to participants.

Though I do admire and support the spirit of getting the government out of the marriage business altogether it really isn't going to happen any time soon. In fact, the most socially conservatives are not even pushing seriously for that to come to pass. Until the government is removed from marriage; which I don't see ever happening, then marriage access and the rights entailed with it should be granted to same sex couples.

Agreed. But I think it's important to recognize that it's a "hack" to cover up otherwise bad government. We do that far too often - legislating ever more bad law to cover up the ill effects of earlier missteps.

 

[mdk]

Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.

There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.

And the far left talking points come out !

Nope! And always incorrect, wrong, not even close..

Yet they still push this debunked talking point as a "fact"..

Despite realizing that is way beyond your abilities to do so, care to explain what I'm wrong about?

What is it you find to be a "debunked talking point"?

Wondering that myself. I'm not sure how it can be a talking point, as this issue rarely comes up.

Marriage should be handled as any other contract, and infer no special rights to participants.

Though I do admire and support the spirit of getting the government out of the marriage business altogether it really isn't going to happen any time soon. In fact, the most socially conservatives are not even pushing seriously for that to come to pass. Until the government is removed from marriage; which I don't see ever happening, then marriage access and the rights entailed with it should be granted to same sex couples.

Agreed. But I think it's important to recognize that it's a "hack" to cover up otherwise bad government. We do that far too often - legislating ever more bad law to cover up the ill effects of earlier missteps.

I am willing to bet the vast and overwhelming majority of people still support all the perks, rights, and goodies the government bestows on married couples. The rub is that they still want these perks for themselves while denying them to other married couples they deem unworthy.

I am not sure how one can reconcile the postion of wanting the government out of marriage all the while accepting the same perks, rights, and benefits that the government bestows on THEIR marriage. If these people truly wanted the government out of marriage they wouldn't accept these perks and tax breaks in the first place.

 

[dblack]

And the far left talking points come out !

Nope! And always incorrect, wrong, not even close..

Yet they still push this debunked talking point as a "fact"..

Despite realizing that is way beyond your abilities to do so, care to explain what I'm wrong about?

What is it you find to be a "debunked talking point"?

Wondering that myself. I'm not sure how it can be a talking point, as this issue rarely comes up.

Marriage should be handled as any other contract, and infer no special rights to participants.

Though I do admire and support the spirit of getting the government out of the marriage business altogether it really isn't going to happen any time soon. In fact, the most socially conservatives are not even pushing seriously for that to come to pass. Until the government is removed from marriage; which I don't see ever happening, then marriage access and the rights entailed with it should be granted to same sex couples.

Agreed. But I think it's important to recognize that it's a "hack" to cover up otherwise bad government. We do that far too often - legislating ever more bad law to cover up the ill effects of earlier missteps.

I am willing to bet the vast and overwhelming majority of people still support all the perks, rights, and goodies the government bestows on married couples. The rub is that they still want these perks for themselves while denying them to other married couples they deem unworthy.

I am not sure how one can reconcile the postion of wanting the government out of marriage all the while accepting the same perks, rights, and benefits that the government bestows on THEIR marriage. If these people truly wanted the government out of marriage they wouldn't accept these perks and tax breaks in the first place.

Most of them don't. I don't often here this point made by conservatives. Conservatives like their government interference as much as liberals. They just want it to 'interfere different'.