Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

The hetero fascists keep pissing on themselves.

The facts remain: SCOTUS is heading for a marriage equality decision, the majority of Americans and a super majority of millenials want it.

If SCOTUS rules against it, the decision will be left to the states.

It will be a state by state battle which inevitably will minimalize the far right.

Marriage equality is coming soon.

 

[d_tyler]

Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.

"Religion" is one matter, faith in God is a separate subject.

I agree with that. For the most part, religion is a wall between individuals and what we perceive as "God". You'll find God a lot easier when you're alone in a forest than surrounded by strange strangers in a mega-church.

You'll find what? How can you agree with that statement when you spend so much time blasting the very concept of 'God'?

I can't figure where your problem with religion starts and stops. It's odd to see your responses about "imaginary friends" and then read how easy it is to find "God" in a forest.

Help me understand.... Is it the organized religion part you don't like (mega-church as you refer to)? Or some other part of it. Or is it just the whole idea of an omnipresent being with more power than any of us can comprehend?

 

[d_tyler]

The statist here is kg who wants to use big government to enforce her moral beliefs.

Won't happen, sis.

Actually fake isn't it just the opposite? YOU want to force YOUR morals onto bakers, Priest, Rabbis, and anyone else who doesn't believe that anal sex is natural. You will have it no other way then YOUR way.

Yep, you use the language of the KKK, the anti-women lobby, so forth and so on.

You want to use Big Government, just like kg, to deny people the same civil rights you have.

You don't get to discriminate in a business in the public sector.

You make cakes, then you make them for everybody.

mmmm....not necessarily. There are more businesses that support the idea of "Right to refuse service" than you would be willing to admit. So, yes, to a degree, you DO get to discriminate if you so choose. It can be for a number of reasons.

Does that make it right? That depends on who you ask.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you read Matthew 19 further, He also talks about eunuchs, which in the Greek is translated to homosexuals.

Nice try, Sparkles, but no. Once again, just because you can find someone online saying what you want to hear does NOT make it true.

The word "eunuch" comes from both Latin and Greek roots; the Greek word "eunukhous" translates to "castrated man", although it derived its own roots from the words "eune", meaning "bed", and "okhos", meaning "keeper of". Eunuchs, of course, were popular as harem guards, since they could obviously be trusted not to violate the women.

http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/cardiff.htm

Homosexual eunuchs, according to history, were often gay men or lesbians.

"Oh, look, someone wrote a paper saying so and posted it on the Internet! It MUST be true!"

And GayChristian 101? Seriously, fuckstain? What part of "Just because you can find someone online saying what you want to hear does NOT make it true" has too many syllables? Exactly which STD has rotted your brain to this extent?

Your "sources" do not impress me with how right you are. They do not impress me with how knowledgeable and believable you are. The more you post, the more convinced I become that I'm right, just because any position you disagree with has to be right by definition.

Congratulations. What's it like to know that the biggest favor you could do for homosexuals is to shut your cakehole and stay as far away from supporting their cause as you can get?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not. The queers are demanding we accept their behavior as normal. You're confused.

It is normal.

Oh, WELL, if YOU say it's normal, then . . . I'm twice as convinced it's a mental disorder. The more you support something, the more wrong it has to be, since you're congenitally too stupid to hold a correct opinion even by accident.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone can refuse service, Votto, if it does not involve violating the civil liberties of others.

I can be thrown out of the store for not wearing a shirt and shoes.

If it is a bakery that holds itself out to the public as a make of wedding cakes, it cannot deny me a memorial cake for my wife and I.

And it cannot deny such to a homosexual couple because they are same sex.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If a church gets taxpayers money then they have to hold gay weddings. But if not then they have the right to choose.

Churches don't get taxpayer money in the United States, you dumb bitch. That would be the "separation of church and state" that people are always hollering about.

Cripes, why do you bother commenting on the politics of a nation that you know nothing about, and that wouldn't have you if you paid us, anyway? It can't possibly be because you think you add anything to the conversation.

 

[Kosh]

Anyone can refuse service, Votto, if it does not involve violating the civil liberties of others.

I can be thrown out of the store for not wearing a shirt and shoes.

If it is a bakery that holds itself out to the public as a make of wedding cakes, it cannot deny me a memorial cake for my wife and I.

And it cannot deny such to a homosexual couple because they are same sex.

More far left propaganda based on failed logic.

The far left often claims they want separation of church and state, but yet the want the government involved in marriage..

 

[Cecilie1200]

If we care about our freedom and our Constitution, neither side will want government to control our morals or our choices sexual activity. If you love your country you'll fight for the rights of ALL Americans.

Between consenting adults - nobody's business but those involved.

Good then do not force other to accept gay "marriage", get the government out of the business of marriage.

Exactly.

The constitution doesn't say 'equality for some'. Its equality for all. Glad you agree the government has no right to say who can and cannot get married.

And if your disingenuous goalpost-moving had anything to do with the topic at hand, that would be useful.

Unfortunately for you, the topic isn't "who can be married", as you keep trying to pretend it is. It's which relationships the government will officially sanction and recognize, and the government pretty much has to have a say on what that criteria is.

 

[Kosh]

Marriage is not a "right"

Another far left myth that needs to be dispelled...

You are obviously a product of home schooling.

It is not a myth. SCOTUS has said so.

Step along.

Marriage is not a "right".

It is a far left myth, promoted by far left Obama drones, because they know no better due to faulty programming.

 

[d_tyler]

Anyone can refuse service, Votto, if it does not involve violating the civil liberties of others.

I can be thrown out of the store for not wearing a shirt and shoes.

If it is a bakery that holds itself out to the public as a make of wedding cakes, it cannot deny me a memorial cake for my wife and I.

And it cannot deny such to a homosexual couple because they are same sex.

Sure they can....there are COUNTLESS ways to refuse service without showing your hand...

"Sorry, we're booked solid. I don't have time to provide you with proper service."

"Sir, I'm sorry, but this coming Friday is the LAST day that we are going to be making wedding cakes for a unspecified length of time while we update the area of the bakery where we produce large specialty baked goods."

"I'm all out of icing."


Here's the question I've always had about this very volatile situation....

Why would you want to FORCE a bakery to do something that they don't want to do?

Wouldn't you be concerned about the quality of service? Is your wedding day something you want to gamble that on?

Why not go find a bakery that LOVES to do wedding cakes for ANYBODY?

It just wreaks of making a point and drawing attention because they can. Ridiculous.

And stupid.

 

[Kosh]

If we care about our freedom and our Constitution, neither side will want government to control our morals or our choices sexual activity. If you love your country you'll fight for the rights of ALL Americans.

Between consenting adults - nobody's business but those involved.

Good then do not force other to accept gay "marriage", get the government out of the business of marriage.

Exactly.

The constitution doesn't say 'equality for some'. Its equality for all. Glad you agree the government has no right to say who can and cannot get married.

More proof that the far left does not understand anything beyond their programming!

Marriage is not a "right".

Get the government out of the business of Marriage.

 

[RWHeathenGamer]

I disagree, I think marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage licenses should be issued by the state with incentives to promote procreation and family formation to support the continuity, stability, and the strengthening of the fabric of society going forward. This blind egalitarianism you are pushing serves no purpose outside of itself and is irrational.

Why is marriage between a man and a woman? Is it a religious dictate? If so which religion? I seem to recall other cultures (native american?) allowed same sex marriage, shouldn't their traditions be respected?

If marriage is for procreation we should NOT allow marriage to anyone infertile or anyone past the age of child-bearing. Right?

If you dislike egalitarianism I think it falls on you to show why it should not be allowed.

They can't. No one has ever made a good argument against marriage equality because there is none.

De facto same sex marriage has always existed. The fact that legal or religious systems have not recognized them, or outlawed them, or persecuted them,

is irrelevant.

Well yes, initially it was a religious dictate coming out of our Christian tradition here in the west. So I am talking about what the government's policy on marriage ought to be in Western Societies.

If on Indian Reservations they wish to issue same sex marriage licenses I wouldn't oppose it, I support full tribal autonomy. I don't know what tribes you speak of, but no, I don't think government policy should be reflective of the traditions of these supposed tribes, it should be reflective of our own historical traditions as emerging from European Christian civilization.

Also for practical considerations. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose. It makes no sense to put the lifestyle on par with a union that results in children and therefore a family except to not hurt the feelings of people and be "fair". As though fairness, equality, basically FEELINGS, should trump practical considerations and reality.

Infertile couples can still adopt, and being a man and woman still form the foundation of the nuclear family. But most people aren't infertile, and these minute exceptions to the rule in no way negate the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and family formation.

I just outlined why homosexual couples and heterosexual couples shouldn't be treated the same. Though the burden is on you why we should treat them the same as you are making an affirmative case to change the law.

 

[Noomi]

If a church gets taxpayers money then they have to hold gay weddings. But if not then they have the right to choose.

Churches don't get taxpayer money in the United States, you dumb bitch. That would be the "separation of church and state" that people are always hollering about.

Cripes, why do you bother commenting on the politics of a nation that you know nothing about, and that wouldn't have you if you paid us, anyway? It can't possibly be because you think you add anything to the conversation.

STFU, troll.

 

[Papageorgio]

If a church gets taxpayers money then they have to hold gay weddings. But if not then they have the right to choose.

Churches don't get taxpayer money in the United States, you dumb bitch. That would be the "separation of church and state" that people are always hollering about.

Cripes, why do you bother commenting on the politics of a nation that you know nothing about, and that wouldn't have you if you paid us, anyway? It can't possibly be because you think you add anything to the conversation.

STFU, troll.

How is she trolling? Your comments with no basis in any facts is more like trolling.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[alang1216]

ALMIGHTY GOD MAKES THE RULES THAT COUNT FOR ETERNITY NOT little man and ALMIGHTY GOD SAYS SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION.

Has God spoken directly to you or are you just putting your faith in what others have told you?

and why are you shouting?

READ GOD'S ETERNAL LIVING WORD IF YOU WANT TO HEAR GOD'S WORDS=I DO!!! And you??

Read what? OT, NT, Book of Mormon, Q'ran, or some other book? And how do I know which is the word of God and which is a fraud? How do you?

 

[alang1216]

Why is marriage between a man and a woman? Is it a religious dictate? If so which religion? I seem to recall other cultures (native american?) allowed same sex marriage, shouldn't their traditions be respected?

If marriage is for procreation we should NOT allow marriage to anyone infertile or anyone past the age of child-bearing. Right?

If you dislike egalitarianism I think it falls on you to show why it should not be allowed.

They can't. No one has ever made a good argument against marriage equality because there is none.

De facto same sex marriage has always existed. The fact that legal or religious systems have not recognized them, or outlawed them, or persecuted them,

is irrelevant.

Well yes, initially it was a religious dictate coming out of our Christian tradition here in the west. So I am talking about what the government's policy on marriage ought to be in Western Societies.

If on Indian Reservations they wish to issue same sex marriage licenses I wouldn't oppose it, I support full tribal autonomy. I don't know what tribes you speak of, but no, I don't think government policy should be reflective of the traditions of these supposed tribes, it should be reflective of our own historical traditions as emerging from European Christian civilization.

Also for practical considerations. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose. It makes no sense to put the lifestyle on par with a union that results in children and therefore a family except to not hurt the feelings of people and be "fair". As though fairness, equality, basically FEELINGS, should trump practical considerations and reality.

Infertile couples can still adopt, and being a man and woman still form the foundation of the nuclear family. But most people aren't infertile, and these minute exceptions to the rule in no way negate the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and family formation.

I just outlined why homosexual couples and heterosexual couples shouldn't be treated the same. Though the burden is on you why we should treat them the same as you are making an affirmative case to change the law.

Many of your arguments were raised when interracial marriages were made legal here in Virginia. And that was not so very long ago. Tradition doesn't hold much sway with me. To say people should be denied legal rights because they've always been denied such rights is a pretty weak argument.

Gay couples have always formed long-term relationships and children are often involved. By denying the gay couple the same legal rights as other couples harms them but it also harms the children involved. I see no justification for that.

You didn't answer the question: Should eldery couples be allowed to wed?

 

[Seawytch]

If a church gets taxpayers money then they have to hold gay weddings. But if not then they have the right to choose.

Churches don't get taxpayer money in the United States, you dumb bitch. That would be the "separation of church and state" that people are always hollering about.

You know...if your are going to be rude and nasty, you should at least be right. You're not.

Executive Order 13199 - Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

That does not mean that Churches should be or will be forced to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. That will never happen in the United States.

Now, a church that rents it's property to the public must abide by the public accommodation laws of the locality in which they are doing business. (not religion, business)

 

[Seawytch]

Also for practical considerations. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose. It makes no sense to put the lifestyle on par with a union that results in children and therefore a family except to not hurt the feelings of people and be "fair". As though fairness, equality, basically FEELINGS, should trump practical considerations and reality.

Can you name the state or locality in which procreation is a requirement for civil marriage? I can name about a half dozen in which procreation is prohibited for certain couples before they are allowed to civilly marry. Doesn't that completely render your "point" moot?

Infertile couples can still adopt, and being a man and woman still form the foundation of the nuclear family. But most people aren't infertile, and these minute exceptions to the rule in no way negate the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and family formation.

Gays have children too. About 16% of same sex couples are raising children. Gays adopt.

Research suggests that gay and lesbian parents are actually a powerful resource for kids in need of adoption. According to a 2007 report by the Williams Institute and the Urban Institute, 65,000 kids were living with adoptive gay parents between 2000 and 2002, with another 14,000 in foster homes headed by gays and lesbians. (There are currently more than 100,000 kids in foster care in the U.S.)

An October 2011 report by Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that, of gay and lesbian adoptions at more than 300 agencies, 10 percent of the kids placed were older than 6 — typically a very difficult age to adopt out. About 25 percent were older than 3. Sixty percent of gay and lesbian couples adopted across races, which is important given that minority children in the foster system tend to linger. More than half of the kids adopted by gays and lesbians had special needs.​

And you say "most people" aren't infertile. Well, according to currently available statistics, there are more infertile couples than gay couples.

I just outlined why homosexual couples and heterosexual couples shouldn't be treated the same. Though the burden is on you why we should treat them the same as you are making an affirmative case to change the law.

No, you tried to justify bigotry against a group of people. Gay couples are no different than straight couples. Some want children, some don't. Some have children, some don't. You only want to keep the gay ones from civilly marrying.

 

[Mac1958]

.

People who work in churches drive on roads and bridges to get to work 'n stuff, so they need to just shut the fuck up and do as they're told by The Collective.



.