Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

Syriusly, nobody would have conceived of the thought ten years ago that gays would be forcing christian photographers to film their weddings. Now they are..

Nobody is fooled that if gays turn marriage from a state-defined/granted privelege it currently is to a federally-mandated "right" that it will be longer than a year before the first lawsuit is filed. You are not every gay person. There are some very virluent evangelists in your ranks who HATE christianity and want it eradicated from our society.

 

[Syriusly]

And once the status of privelege has morphed into a "right", won't churches then be in violation of "civil rights" for refusing to marry homosexuals, monosexuals

As always- what the hell are you talking about?

Monosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction to members of one sex or gender only.[1] A monosexual person may identify as heterosexual or homosexual.[2][3] In discussions of sexual orientation, the term is chiefly used in contrast to bisexuality.[4] It is sometimes considered derogatory by the people to whom it is applied.[2]

 

[Syriusly]

Dunno. The court isn't addressing 'monosexuals' or 'polysexuals'. Its addressing gay marriage. The specifics of which you seem increasingly reluctant to discuss.

When I'm discussing ANY alternative sexual lifestylist, I AM discussing gay marriage. ..

And that is the only thing the courts are addressing- 'gay' or 'same gender' marriage.

None of your strawmen.

 

[Syriusly]

"All this stuff has become a huge distraction from what is important in life"

Nonsense.

Seeking one's comprehensive civil liberties is of the utmost importance.

Speaking of comprehensive...

How would anyone leave monosexuals.

Monosexuals can marry anyone that they want in some 36 states now.

 

[Silhouette]

Dunno. The court isn't addressing 'monosexuals' or 'polysexuals'. Its addressing gay marriage. The specifics of which you seem increasingly reluctant to discuss.

When I'm discussing ANY alternative sexual lifestylist, I AM discussing gay marriage. There is nothing sacred about being gay as opposed to any other type of deviant sexuality. The only sacred thing that will come up in discussions in the upcoming Hearing this year will be individual rights as to marriage vs the privelege that states have always been in control of defining and granting. Ergo, since you cannot discriminate arbitrarily, as you are now hypocritically trying to do, we must discuss all alternative-sexual lifestyles when discussing "gay marriage"..
You know that, oh intellectually-dishonest one.. How come "gay" is so special? Wouldn't "LGBTQ" also include polysexuals? Monosexuals? You bigoted towards them are you? Judgmental of them?

 

[Skylar]

Dunno. The court isn't addressing 'monosexuals' or 'polysexuals'. Its addressing gay marriage. The specifics of which you seem increasingly reluctant to discuss.

When I'm discussing ANY alternative sexual lifestylist, I AM discussing gay marriage.

Not according to the courts. The courts address specific legal questions. And the issues of 'monoseuxality' and 'polysexuality' aren't under consideration in any case the USSC is currently hearing.

When and if that changes, talk to me. Your insistence that we ignore actual cases in favor of any imaginary case you wish to make up doesn't similarly obligate me to do the same.

If your claims regarding gay marriage had merit, you wouldn't have had to abandon them

 

[Silhouette]

Monosexuals can marry anyone that they want in some 36 states now.

That's like saying "Gays can marry the opposite sex in all 50 states". Monosexual people often choose to be that way, alone. Who are you to force them to abandon their sexual preference?

 

[Syriusly]

"All this stuff has become a huge distraction from what is important in life"

Nonsense.

Seeking one's comprehensive civil liberties is of the utmost importance.

Yet all at the expense of another's liberty, is it that important ?

If you don't approve of public accommodation laws- then by all means go ahead and advocate their repeal.

Many of those who support gay marriage also oppose public accommodation laws on a liberty issue.

Many of them are at a city or State level, and would be easier than repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Your argument is with the law- why do you keep arguing about homosexuals?

 

[Skylar]

Monosexuals can marry anyone that they want in some 36 states now.

That's like saying "Gays can marry the opposite sex in all 50 states". Monosexual people often choose to be that way, alone. Who are you to force them to abandon their sexual preference?

And which case involving 'monosexual rights' is the court currently hearing or likely to hear?

 

[Silhouette]

If you don't approve of public accommodation laws- then by all means go ahead and advocate their repeal.

Many of those who support gay marriage also oppose public accommodation laws on a liberty issue.

Many of them are at a city or State level, and would be easier than repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Your argument is with the law- why do you keep arguing about homosexuals?

While Syriusly and other LGBT advocates here profess innocence, you get comments like these ^^ that are preambles to the for-a-fact lawsuits in the future that will force churches to perform gay marriage/defy their faith at its core...

 

[Syriusly]

A homosexual activist “judge” kept Carrie Prejean from winning the Miss USA contest.
Next, the homosexual “marriage” activists who led the California pageant tried to get Carrie fired, but Donald Trump said no.

Finally, the homosexual activist director of the Miss California Pageant persisted and got rid of Carrie.

Her horrible answer prevented her from winning. As regardless of your take on the issue, her job is to be diplomatic and charismatic.She was released from her Miss California contract because she posed for partially nude photos, a breach of her contract. And Prejean masturbating on video, another breach of her contract.

Now....lets compare that to Alexander "AJ" Betts Jr..

Gay Iowa Teen Commits Suicide, Was Allegedly Bullied By Classmates

An Iowa community is reeling after a teen's suicide, the fifth to rattle the local high school over the past five years.

According to his mother Sheryl Moore, Alexander "AJ" Betts Jr. was subjected to intense bullying at Southeast Polk High School because of his sexuality (he came out as gay about a year and a half ago) and his mixed race background, the Des Moines Register is reporting.

Calling her 16-year-old son's death "the most painful thing I have been through in my entire life," Moore has since vowed to help educate people on how "words hurt."

Gay Iowa Teen Commits Suicide Was Allegedly Bullied By Classmates

Bullied....to death. Compared to losing a contract because she violated said contract by doing porn.

These are orders of magnitude apart. Yet you consistently try and portray yourself as the victim. While ignoring the horrible consequences of the actual persecution of gays.

Then Phil was asked a question, and then when he answered it they attacked him also, and if they could have they wanted him FIRED and the whole show taken off the air.

Phil is a multi-millionaire working as an entertainer. And he alienated many of his audience. He didn't lose his job. And he made millions more.

Now, lets compare that with say......increased depression and suicide among children due to persecution of gays.

THURSDAY, May 16 (HealthDay News) -- Students targeted because they're believed to be gay -- as many as one in seven young teens -- are much more likely than others to be suicidal and depressed, a new survey finds.

More than 10 percent of eighth-grade boys and girls reported that they're victimized because of perceived sexual orientation, according to a large survey of students in Washington state.

Anti-Gay Bullying Tied to Teen Depression Suicide - US News

So a multimillionare entertainer being criticized for offending much of his audience.....and NOT losing his job. Compared with depression, misery and suicide for our children caused by persecution of gays.

And yet you ignore the misery and death....and focus on the multi millionare, casting yourself as a victim. You may want to consider reevaluating your priorities.

Then the CEO of Chic-Filet was asked the set up question also, and when he responded they wanted him to step it back and apologize or they wanted Chic-Filet to be boycotted. Chic-Filet has been so prosperous since then, that it just isn't funny. You can't even get into the parking lot hardly anymore. Not sure if it was because of all of that, but is sure seems like it was.

More accurately...

January 2011, the media reported that the American fast food restaurant chain Chick-fil-A was co-sponsoring a marriage conference along with the Pennsylvania Family Institute (PFI), an organization that had filed an amicus brief against striking down Proposition 8 in California (see Perry v. Brown).[3][4][5][6][7][8] The PFI lobbied against a state effort to ban discrimination in Pennsylvania on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.[9] Responding on its official company Facebook page, Chick-fil-A said that support of the PFI retreat had come from a local franchisee, stating "We have determined that one of our independent restaurant operators in Pennsylvania was asked to provide sandwiches to two Art of Marriage video seminars."[10]

Chick Filet actively worked and spent money to deprive gays of their rights. And it Chick Filet that is being 'persecuted'?

Lets compare that with say, Jamie Hubley. A teen who commited suicide after years of relentless abuse for being gay:

Jamie Hubley, a gay 15-year-old from Ottawa, Canada, committed suicide on Friday.

The 10th grade student documented his life, including his depression and the hardships of being a gay teen, in a blog, reports the Ottawa Citizen.

Jamie Hubley Gay 15-Year-Old Ottawa Canada Teen Commits Suicide Cites Depression School Troubles

See the pattern here?

So are you blaming the Christians for all these incidents in which you have listed ? Can anyone take on some personal responsibility in their life anymore (or) is it just a blame game for the overall agenda that is reached for by a group or by groups these days ? Can you bring us proof that all these cases were ever involving Christians and them being against the gay lifestyle when these incidents happen to take place or had happened ? The Christian brothers and sisters I know generally mind their own business in life, so what are you saying here really ?

You mean like you were blaming homosexuals for all of the rather trivial incidences you have listed?

Can anyone take on some personal responsibility in their life anymore?

The homosexual brothers and sister I know generally mind their own business in life- yet you think that Christianity itself is under attack because a few persons who happen to be Christians are criticised.

You are using different standards for homosexuals than you are for Christians.

Do you even recognize that?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If you don't approve of public accommodation laws- then by all means go ahead and advocate their repeal.

Many of those who support gay marriage also oppose public accommodation laws on a liberty issue.

Many of them are at a city or State level, and would be easier than repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Your argument is with the law- why do you keep arguing about homosexuals?

While Syriusly and other LGBT advocates here profess innocence, you get comments like these ^^ that are preambles to the for-a-fact lawsuits in the future that will force churches to perform gay marriage/defy their faith at its core...

No one is going to force the churches here to hold gay weddings. Not in this country, not a chance in hell, pun intended. Fear-mongering, nothing more..

 

[Silhouette]

And which case involving 'monosexual rights' is the court currently hearing or likely to hear?

You ask the easiest questions! That would be the case seeking to turn marraige from a state-defined/granted privelege into a federally-mandated right for all people. You are familiar with the legal definition of a federal-right? Are you already planning on excluding some people from it?

How ironic..

 

[Skylar]

And which case involving 'monosexual rights' is the court currently hearing or likely to hear?

You ask the easiest questions! That would be the case seeking to turn marraige from a state-defined/granted privelege into a federally-mandated right for all people. You are familiar with the legal definition of a federal-right? Are you already planning on excluding some people from it?

Which case would that be, specifically? Surely it has a name, and asks a specific legal question.

Lets see what that question is.

Show us. Don't tell us

 

[Syriusly]

I mean these people that I mentioned were just minding their own business when the questions were asked of them right, and then they responded honestly to them right ? Now should people be targeted in this way, otherwise when a person don't like an answer someone gives them after they had asked a question while the defendant being asked was just minding his or hers own business ? I mean otherwise weren't they minding their own business when all of a sudden BAM a mouth goes off on them, and the next thing you know their livelihood is being challenged as a result of ?

Beagle- you claimed that Christians were under serious attack. You provided 4 rather insignificant 'attacks'- including one being a millionaire who didn't lose his TV show for his opinions.

I have shown Christians attacking homosexuals such as Ellen Degeneres for simply being gay- not their opinions- but because they have the temerity to be openly gay.

You have not addressed two key points:
a) The reality that homosexuals face physical attacks simply for being homosexuals
b) The reality that Christians engage in the very same kinds of attacks that you claim Christians are being victimized by.

Before I take seriously again your complaint that Christians are under attack- I hope to see you address those two points.

 

[Syriusly]

If you don't approve of public accommodation laws- then by all means go ahead and advocate their repeal.

Many of those who support gay marriage also oppose public accommodation laws on a liberty issue.

Many of them are at a city or State level, and would be easier than repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Your argument is with the law- why do you keep arguing about homosexuals?

While Syriusly and other LGBT advocates here profess innocence, you get comments like these ^^ that are preambles to the for-a-fact lawsuits in the future that will force churches to perform gay marriage/defy their faith at its core...

I am innocent of law breaking- not innocent of many other things.

Certainly I am innocent of the lying and fear mongering that you do.

 

[Syriusly]

Monosexuals can marry anyone that they want in some 36 states now.

That's like saying "Gays can marry the opposite sex in all 50 states". Monosexual people often choose to be that way, alone. Who are you to force them to abandon their sexual preference?

I am not forcing monosexuals to abandon anything.

Monosexuals can marry anyone they want depending on the state- in all 50 states they can marry someone of the opposite gender- in 36 states they can also marry someone of the same gender.

Monosexuals are attracted to a single gender- if they want to marry another monosexual who happens to be attracted to the same gender, then they are currently limited to the states which have marriage equality.

 

[mdk]

If you don't approve of public accommodation laws- then by all means go ahead and advocate their repeal.

Many of those who support gay marriage also oppose public accommodation laws on a liberty issue.

Many of them are at a city or State level, and would be easier than repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Your argument is with the law- why do you keep arguing about homosexuals?

While Syriusly and other LGBT advocates here profess innocence, you get comments like these ^^ that are preambles to the for-a-fact lawsuits in the future that will force churches to perform gay marriage/defy their faith at its core...

Give me a break. Gays have been getting married for years in some states and I can't recall a single case of a gay or straight couple suing a church because they refused to marry the couple. Spare us all the fear mongering and overly dramatic claptrap. I am sure your next weak repose will be "yet" and you'll act that is some sort of great victory but we know a silly slippery slope when we see one.

Even if some fools in the future do sue for the aforementioned reasons they would be laughed out of court and more than likely forced to pay the legal fees of the defendant.

 

[Silhouette]

Give me a break. Gays have been getting married for years in some states and I can't recall a single case of a gay or straight couple suing a church because they refused to marry the couple. Spare us all the fear mongering and overly dramatic claptrap. I am sure your next weak repose will be "yet" and you'll act that is some sort of great victory but we know a silly slippery slope when we see one.

Even if some fools in the future do sue for the aforementioned reasons they would be laughed out of court and more than likely forced to pay the legal fees of the defendant.

Gays have not been getting legally married in most states. Only a small handful have deliberated statewide pro and con and then ratified a new lifestyle to lord over children in incentivized married homes; minus one of the vital genders as parent/role model of course (structurally just like monosexual/single parents).

The fact that we haven't yet seen a LGBT fold case against a church forcing them to marry gays doesn't mean we will not. The public isn't that gullible. Your smoke and mirrors can only stretch so far before it is so thin that everyone can see straight through it.. Like the poll at the top of this page, for example.. 82%...impressive numbers against gay marriage when we're being told "everyone is in support of gay marriage"

 

[beagle9]

So two delusional individuals hold a confirmation bias conversation.

You two: listen up.

Associate with those who feel like you.

Understand marriage equality will be come the law of the land.

Hide in your corners and be astounded no one attempts to make churches marry folks they don't want to marry.

Then slowly fade away into history as a dusty footnote of little import.

Either you comment with an opinion or don't speak to us at all... I mean here you are with your "you two listen up" crap, as if you are some sort of authoritarian when you speak about something in here. If you have a rational counter in a civilized manor to something that is said in here then give it, but don't tell anyone to listen up as if you are someone special or over anyone in here because you aren't Jake the SNAKE!