Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[beagle9]

That's right unholy filth!

That's what I thought...

 

[Silhouette]

You can always report suspect sock-puppets and their attempts to troll/flame-war etc. topics off the boards.

This one really bugs them beagle. Just look at those poll results. I think it's the largest poll EVER at USMB...suggesting that the topic is of the very most interest and importance to people, far far above any other topic I've seen to date with a poll. This one is like the Goliath of important topics. So they're really pulling out the stops to try to kill the thread and make the polling results above go away.

This thread has over 53,000 views as of today..a fact that does not sit well with the church of LGBT and their smoke and mirrors "everyone supports gay marriage" campaign ...."fake it till you make it".

Only they haven't made it. Windsor 2013 said the states get to choose until further notice and that as of that Decision only some states have legal gay marriage. We all know states don't make their laws by lower federal courts dictating those to them in violation of a specific question of law such as "do states get to ratify or refuse gay marriage"?. Lower courts are prohibited from overturning such a specific question of law until SCOTUS acts further..

 

[Skylar]

I agree that some of these Judges have become this huge problem in America on many issues now, because as you say they are circumventing their sworn duties to adjudicate the law in a way that is fair for everyone involved as best that they can.

The judges duty is to uphold rights and interpret the law. So why would we impeach a judge for doing both?

There's not going to be any impeachments based on Prop 8. Its a fantasy based on desperate, wishful thinking and profound misinterpretations of the Windsor ruling. Where any mention of 'constitutional guarantees' is ignored. But why would a rational person ignore those passages in the Windsor ruling?

There is no reason.

They are persuaded and have become unjust for quite sometime now it seems, and this by their rulings made. It is all due to their activism on the bench along with the thwarting of the whole nations will and resolve of such issues by what they (the Judges) look at as a popularity contest in America, instead of what should be the resolve of such issues in a righteous manor or way coming from their bench in America.

Rights aren't up to a vote. So what does it matter that the majority doesn't think a minority should have rights? The 'Tyranny of the Majority' isn't how we operate. Nor how we're supposed to.

They are interpreting or enforcing their own twisted reasoning of how the nation should move forward or either to move backwards on these things in which they reside over. They have managed to throw this nation into chaos is what they have managed to do, and they have opened the doors to many things that we see going wrong today, and it has backfired on the nation in many ways all because of their wanting to be popular and hip these days or it could be that they have become totally corrupted which is even worse than wanting to become popular and hip to the scene these days.

The nation isn't 'in chaos'. Melodramatic much?

 

[Skylar]

This thread has over 53,000 views as of today..a fact that does not sit well with the church of LGBT and their smoke and mirrors "everyone supports gay marriage" campaign ...."fake it till you make it".

Save of course that the poll in this thread doesn't ask a single question about the legality of gay marriage . But churches being forced to accomidate gay marriges.

While Gallup asked directly about gay marriage support.

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%

Americans' support for the law recognizing same-sex marriages as legally valid has increased yet again, now at 55%. Marriage equality advocates have had a string of legal successes over the past year, most recently this week in Pennsylvania and Oregon where federal judges struck down bans on gay marriage.

You ignore the Gallup poll and all other national polls showing surging support for gay marriage across the country. And so what? Its not like the polls disappear just because you close your eyes. You're simply in denial.

Only they haven't made it. Windsor 2013 said the states get to choose until further notice and that as of that Decision only some states have legal gay marriage.

The Windsor ruling says that subject to certain constitutional guarantees, the States regulate marriage. The Windsor ruling never found that same sex marriage bans are constitutional. Or even mentions same sex marriage bans.

You imagined all of that. And your imagination has no legal relevance.

We all know states don't make their laws by lower federal courts dictating those to them in violation of a specific question of law such as "do states get to ratify or refuse gay marriage"?. Lower courts are prohibited from overturning such a specific question of law until SCOTUS acts further..

The Windsor ruling didn't ask or answer that question. It didn't address it at all. The question that was asked, was does Federal law trump state law on marriage. The answer was no. The Windsor court said absolutely nothing about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. Nor even mentions them. As justice Roberts make ludicriously clear:

But while I disagree with the result to which the major-ity’s analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage."

Chief Justice Roberts

Explicitly contradicting you. So you ignore Roberts....gallup, the Windsor ruling. Anything that doesn't say what you want to believe.

You fail because you can't make us ignore it.

 

[beagle9]

Rights aren't up to a vote. So what does it matter that the majority doesn't think a minority should have rights? The 'Tyranny of the Majority' isn't how we operate. Nor how we're supposed to.

1. If rights weren't up to a vote amongst those who gave us those rights, then how in the world did we come about our rights to begin with ? Otherwise if there was no agreement upon or consensus found between the members of our founders and/or beyond that in this nation, then where did our rules, laws and rights within the nation come from ?

2. So the tyranny of the minority upon us, and this by way of a delusional federal government who is abusing it's power over us now, umm is the way that we are all just supposed to roll these days ?

If we allow our children for example, to be part of the boy scouts in which is a Christian group that has always been accepted and wanted by the majority in this nation, to all of a sudden be dictated to by a very confused person who says that there should be gay scout masters allowed in the scouts now, even when this goes against the majority who see it otherwise, then should we allow this based upon that small minority view against the majority view who does not want this in or around their children ? Now should the scouts be attacked as they have been in the past by those who work within the government or from these small groups for whom wanted the scouts banned in many ways, and all because of their minority view in which they had on such a thing ? These minorities who are in certain groups out there, are always wanting everything changed as based upon their small minority views on life, but that doesn't always work for them, nor should it always work for them. Some if not most of the issues should be decided on a majority standpoint or view, but not all of them.

 

[Skylar]

1. If rights weren't up to a vote amongst those who gave us those rights

From the reasoning used at the birth of our country? Nobody. They already existed. They were merely recognized.

And in our system of laws, rights aren't up to a vote. The city of Chicago, for example, can't vote to strip you of your right to keep and bear arms. Nor can California strip gays and lesbians of their right to marry with the passage of a proposition.

As these matters aren't up to a vote. If you're going to deny rights you need a really good reason and a compelling state interest. And opponents of gay marriage have neither.

You're literally arguing for the tyranny of the majority....where any right can be stripped away from any minority with a majority vote. Um, no thank you. You're clearly not thinking that through.

2. So the tyranny of the minority upon us, and this by way of a delusional federal government who is abusing it's power over us now, umm is the way that we are all just supposed to roll these days ?

The federal government is supposed to protect rights. That's what they're doing. Nixing your 'abuse' argument.

If we allow our children for example, to be part of the boy scouts in which is a Christian group that has always been accepted and wanted by the majority in this nation, to all of a sudden be dictated to by a very confused person who says that there should be gay scout masters allowed in the scouts now, even when this goes against the majority who see it otherwise, then should we allow this based upon that small minority view against the majority view who does not want this in or around their children ?

You aware that the USSC ruled that the Boy Scouts DON'T have to allow gays in, right?

 

[Syriusly]

Keep your gay marriage in your own "church"

Since no one is attempting to force any church to marry anyone that doesn't want to marry them- 'gay marriages' only happen in churches that welcome the loving marriage of two people.

 

[Syriusly]

It seems that this nation has lost that focus or message these days, but it needs to return to these kind of ideals is what I think. Where are the righteous and just Judges anymore in America, and do they even exist anymore ?

None are so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Syriusly]

2. So the tyranny of the minority upon us, and this by way of a delusional federal government who is abusing it's power over us now, umm is the way that we are all just supposed to roll these days ?

That is how Southerners felt when racial discrimination laws were being forced to be eliminated by Federal laws and judges decisions.

For them- not being able to discriminate against a minority- was the tyranny of the minority.

Most of us think that ending the tyranny of the majority then was right- and that it was not a 'tyranny of the minority' to give equal rights to everyone regardless of their color.

What do you think?

 

[Syriusly]

That's right unholy filth!

this guy is sort of his own posting symbol of Tourette's syndrome.

 

[Skylar]

That's right unholy filth!

this guy is sort of his own posting symbol of Tourette's syndrome.

Or someone playing the sock game. That guys just a little too stereotypical to be taken seriously.

 

[Syriusly]

Fagotry is lead by the love of satan

Bigots are the devil's cheer leaders.

If you are against Christians and their freedom to believe what they believe in life, and for them to be able to separate themselves along those lines, then what should we call you ? A Bigot and then a hypocrite maybe ?

Who said I am against Christians?

Christians can do anything that they want.

but if the run a business- and the law says that they cannot discriminate against blacks or Mormons, or Jews or homosexuals- then they can't use the excuse of their religion to not do business with them.

Anymore than the orthodox jew can refuse to do business with a woman or a Muslim can refuse to sell to a jew.

As I have repeatedly said- you don't like the law- then change the law.

Meanwhile- my post was tongue in cheek- a response to the idiotic posts of Heaven boy- my apologies if i offended you.

 

[Syriusly]

Keep your gay marriage in your own "church"

And as with anything pertaining to sex, that church should be in ones own bedroom, and it should remain there and out of sight period. Why anyone feels that their sex life has to be out in front in order to live a good life, is just confusing to me.

I don't know of anyone whose 'sex life' is out in the open.

I have been to weddings- both straight and gay- and believe it or not- at the gay wedding, they don't finish it by having sex in front of us.

Marriage includes the expectation that there will be sex- but I don't go to any wedding thinking wondering what kind of sex the couple has.

Are homophobes different than me in that way?

 

[Silhouette]

I don't know of anyone whose 'sex life' is out in the open. I have been to weddings- both straight and gay- and believe it or not- at the gay wedding, they don't finish it by having sex in front of us. Marriage includes the expectation that there will be sex- but I don't go to any wedding thinking wondering what kind of sex the couple has. Are homophobes different than me in that way?

You're expecting people to really play super dumb along with you.

It's too late. Soon the Supreme Court will take the LGBT advice in the last round and they will really start thinking about the children in marriages....and how depriving them of the complimentary gender as parent (and a source of self-esteem and modeling should the child be of that ostracized gender) 100% of the time won't be a good idea for the vastly larger number of children into the untold future than the mere few thousands of those caught up in the gay lifestyle today.

Making gay lifestyles "legitimate" in marriage is not a favor to kids. Quite the opposite in fact.. The Supreme Court is set to launch a torpedo at the nucleus of society into time unfathomable. The reverberations of that act will be felt in churches too as before any ink dries on an unfortunate, myopic decision in the short term to "think of the kids" vs the longer and deeper term "think of the kids", the church of LGBT's fold will be filing lawsuits against christian churches to force them to perform gay marriages.

Again, there is every reason to believe the unstoppable-lawsuit trend will continue and no reason to believe it will not...

 

[Skylar]

I don't know of anyone whose 'sex life' is out in the open. I have been to weddings- both straight and gay- and believe it or not- at the gay wedding, they don't finish it by having sex in front of us. Marriage includes the expectation that there will be sex- but I don't go to any wedding thinking wondering what kind of sex the couple has. Are homophobes different than me in that way?

You're expecting people to really play super dumb along with you.

It's too late. Soon the Supreme Court will take the LGBT advice in the last round and they will really start thinking about the children in marriages

They already have started thinking about children in marriage. The harm caused to the children of same sex parents when the marriages of their parents weren't legally recognized was all over the Windsor decision. And it was an argument in favor of same sex marriages. Not against.

You seem confused.

....and how depriving them of the complimentary gender as parent (and a source of self-esteem and modeling should the child be of that ostracized gender) 100% of the time won't be a good idea for the vastly larger number of children into the untold future than the mere few thousands of those caught up in the gay lifestyle today.

The obvious problem with that reasoning is two fold. First, this is your standard. This USSC has never indicated it gives a fiddler's fuck about the 'complimentary gender' standard in raising children. So you're literally projecting your beliefs onto the courts........for no particular reason.

Second, gays and lesbians are already having kids. And the LACK of marriage for their parents is recognized as harm, per the courts. Literally the opposite of what you're claiming.

Why then would the supreme court ignore its own rulings and instead follow whatever you believe? There is no reason.

The Supreme Court is set to launch a torpedo at the nucleus of society into time unfathomable.

Oh, the humanities. But weren't we supposed to have all died from the nuclear melt downs and end of civlization from that Ebola patient being let into the US? Or was that just your *last* uselessly inaccurate prediction of doom unless we do whatever you imagine?

Sorry, the melodrama kinds of blends together.

 

[Silhouette]

We shall see. The new Congress convenes soon and the divide in the lower courts, one on board with Windsor 2013 and the others in contempt of it will be ushering in a new case to reiterate the fed's position on state's choice on gay marriage, polygamy marriage and all the others that will be immediately graced if the Supremes decide marriage is a right and not what it currently is: a state-bestowed privelege when it comes to lifestyles..

 

[Syriusly]

I don't know of anyone whose 'sex life' is out in the open. I have been to weddings- both straight and gay- and believe it or not- at the gay wedding, they don't finish it by having sex in front of us. Marriage includes the expectation that there will be sex- but I don't go to any wedding thinking wondering what kind of sex the couple has. Are homophobes different than me in that way?

You're expecting people to really play super dumb along with you.

It's too late. Soon the Supreme Court will take the LGBT advice in the last round and they will really start thinking about the children in marriages.

Chief Justice Kennedy already has been thinking about it

"DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others," the decision says, going on to conclude that the federal statute "is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

 

[Syriusly]

We shall see. The new Congress convenes soon and the divide in the lower courts, one on board with Windsor 2013 and the others in contempt of it will be ushering in a new case to reiterate the fed's position on state's choice on gay marriage, polygamy marriage and all the others that will be immediately graced if the Supremes decide marriage is a right and not what it currently is: a state-bestowed privelege when it comes to lifestyles..

the new Congress won't be touching gay marriage with a tent pole. It has no authority over the judiciary or the Supreme Court.

 

[Skylar]

We shall see. The new Congress convenes soon and the divide in the lower courts, one on board with Windsor 2013 and the others in contempt of it will be ushering in a new case to reiterate the fed's position on state's choice on gay marriage, polygamy marriage and all the others that will be immediately graced if the Supremes decide marriage is a right and not what it currently is: a state-bestowed privelege when it comes to lifestyles..

And when nothing happens in the next '30 days or less', is it cool if I point and laugh at you for yet another meaningless prediction drawn from your fundamentally broken analytical process?

 

[beagle9]

1. If rights weren't up to a vote amongst those who gave us those rights

If your going to quote someone, then how about giving the entire quote.. This is another tactic that is used by the left isn't it ?

From the reasoning used at the birth of our country? Nobody. They already existed. They were merely recognized.

They already existed eh ? We merely founded the nation with everything already in place or intact, and so all we had to do was just recognize this eh, and then implement it all ? Are you smoking something like crack maybe ?

And in our system of laws, rights aren't up to a vote. The city of Chicago, for example, can't vote to strip you of your right to keep and bear arms. Nor can California strip gays and lesbians of their right to marry with the passage of a proposition.

As these matters aren't up to a vote. If you're going to deny rights you need a really good reason and a compelling state interest. And opponents of gay marriage have neither.

And if we find as a majority that there is a very good reason, and that also there is a very compelling state interest on some matters in which we might find just as important to either be held back or even reveresed, then how do we go about challenging those who might want to take away our rights, and for whom might want to squash our freedoms without us having an equal avenue to travel down in order to do so ? Just like anyone else or any other group has, we should also hold the same right to challenge something as any other, but the left is trying to convince us that only their ideas or rights matter, and that ours doesn't. One group doesn't have the right to have access to challenging things, and another group doesn't, but that is what is trying to be suggested in all of this, and it's not working because it's just wrong.

You're literally arguing for the tyranny of the majority....where any right can be stripped away from any minority with a majority vote. Um, no thank you. You're clearly not thinking that through.

No, that isn't what I'm after or advocating at all, but rather just to protect the majority who has agreed that somethings are just decent and good, and that they should not be infringed upon by another just because the other all of a sudden says so or wants it to be so even if what they want is wrong in the eyes of the majority on some issues, but not on all issues.

The federal government is supposed to protect rights. That's what they're doing. Nixing your 'abuse' argument.

What if your so called right is something that is just now being interpreted as a right by you and a few more, but it hasn't met the standard yet of being a so called right that is recognized by the majority of the citizens or by the nation as a whole yet ? Does your so called right nix others rights in the nation, I mean if this is what it does when you exorcize it ?

If we allow our children for example, to be part of the boy scouts in which is a Christian group that has always been accepted and wanted by the majority in this nation, to all of a sudden be dictated to by a very confused person who says that there should be gay scout masters allowed in the scouts now, even when this goes against the majority who see it otherwise, then should we allow this based upon that small minority view against the majority view who does not want this in or around their children ?

You aware that the USSC ruled that the Boy Scouts DON'T have to allow gays in, right?

Just using it as an example in the thread, where as there are somethings that are not won, nor should they have been won out by a minority over a majority in some cases and/or situations.