Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

Indeed, the puppy has been stomped.

Sil continual to argue backwardly reveals clearly a disintegrating awareness of reality around him.

Now that Sil understands that churches will not be required to marry homosexuals, let's go ahead and close the thread. It has never served a practical or useful purpose.

You think that people watching the lawsuits against christian bakers, photographers, florists and caterers

Those are all lawsuits based upon public accomodation laws.

Churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

Any lawsuits against a church would therefore be dismissed at the first hearing.

But yes- there would be idiots who would attempt such a lawsuit. Any idiot can file a lawsuit, just like any idiot can claim that it is still illegal for gay couples to marry in California.

 

[Paperman299]

I cannot begin to wrap my head around this. How is it that you see a poll affirming that the vast majority of the USMB is AGAINST churches being forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual partners, and come away with the idea that it shows churches WILL be forced to do that very thing?

I don't. I can extrapolate that conclusion from the many lawsuits already done or in progress against christian bakers, photographers etc. A "church" is merely a congregation of christians. It is no more special or different from an individual christian. Just the numbers of them together in one place.

The importance of the poll at the top is related in that it shows how many people are afraid that churches will be next in that legal steamroller's path.

Sure you can begin to wrap your head around those simple and patently obvious concepts. You're just saying you cannot in order to entice other readers here to say to themselves "maybe this obvious logic isn't what it is". You're intending to introduce obfuscation of the simple and visible and turn it into something "one should doubt in their own mind".

Y'all's bag of tricks is deep and wide. I'll give you that.

...Everything you just said came from your imagination.

A "church" is not merely a congregation of Christians. I understand why this idea appeals to you on a philosophical level, but a real, legal church has tax-exempt status. It is a legally-protected space in which to perform religious worship.

The fact that people jumped in to affirm that they don't want churches forced to perform this kind of ceremony is proof that they're afraid it will happen? But then why are so many gay marriage supporters on here, voting the same and saying they don't want that option?

And believe it or not, there was no secret agenda in my question. I do not understand how you are coming to these conclusions. And when someone asks you a question about your logic and you respond that your logic is so self-evident that they must be out to get you, that makes you seem crazy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

beagle and Sil continue to flail as the thread's fail becomes ever more apparent.

I'd hardly call 82% a "fail"...the poll above and the 50,000 views on this most popular thread in USMB's history are anything but a "fail"...

Do you think your spin on the truth has that potent of an effect?

(Translation: PLEASE! Moderators please make this thread go away right now especially!!)

I cannot begin to wrap my head around this. How is it that you see a poll affirming that the vast majority of the USMB is AGAINST churches being forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual partners, and come away with the idea that it shows churches WILL be forced to do that very thing?

Because Sil has been anything but honest.

He argues that opinions mean the exact opposite of what they mean.

He denies that the gays here overwhelmingly support the churches' right to choose who they will marry.

He argues his poll is a referendum on gay marriage.

His arguments have been rightfully quirted down, and now he is in the corner snarling along with his rabid pack.

He is losing and is crying, crying, crying.

Hetero-fascists: listen up. You brought this on yourself, and the future's generations are going to hold you up as a laughing stock, just like that of the KKK and the White Citizens Councils.

 

[Skylar]

I don't. I can extrapolate that conclusion from the many lawsuits already done or in progress against christian bakers, photographers etc. A "church" is merely a congregation of christians. It is no more special or different from an individual christian. Just the numbers of them together in one place.

Save that a church doesn't pay taxes, isn't a business and isn't subject to Public Accommodation laws.

As usual, Silo.....you're clueless. You don't now what you're talking about. And your 'extrapolations' are based on a series of nested assumptions, none of which are true.

The importance of the poll at the top is related in that it shows how many people are afraid that churches will be next in that legal steamroller's path.

Um, the poll doesn't demonstrate fear, nor does it ask about fear. It demonstrates opinion, as it asked us what we think should happen. I have zero fear that churches will be forced to accommodate gay weddings. I don't think they should.

And you imagine the poll to mean whatever is convenient to your argument at the moment. When you were arguing that all the dozens of polls showing support for gay marriage were lies and that gay marriage support was collapsing....you cited the exact same USMB poll as your evidence.

Despite the fact that the poll never asks about support for gay marriage.

Sure you can begin to wrap your head around those simple and patently obvious concepts. You're just saying you cannot in order to entice other readers here to say to themselves "maybe this obvious logic isn't what it is". You're intending to introduce obfuscation of the simple and visible and turn it into something "one should doubt in their own mind".

So its obvious that something that isn't a business and isn't subject to public accommodation laws is the same as a business and is subject to public accommodation laws?

I don't think 'obvious' means what you think it means. I think rather than 'obvious', the words 'batshit crazy' would apply more aptly.

 

[Skylar]

...Everything you just said came from your imagination.

And that, right there, is a perfect one sentence summary of all of Silo's arguments on the matter.

 

[Skylar]

I'll do this one for you, and that's it.... The whole book is of course to be believed, and just because things changed within the book, and throughout the generations, does not make the point that was being made wrong now does it ?

So when you said 'the new testament and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it'
you meant that either the whole book is believed or it isn't?

You tried to take something of old (cherry picked it), and then you tried to apply it to this conversation in an attempt to make someone look silly with it or to confuse others with it, but you fail because people aren't that dumb or simple as you think that they are. It's an old trick that is played over and over again by the ones who work for the evil one in these ways, and this is why it fails today for you, so get with the program or speak when you know better how to conduct yourself in a far more better and truthful way. I mean you might be more believable then, but for now your just exposed.

Oh my, a direct and accurate quote. How devious of me.

 

[Skylar]

Aren't we all looking forward to seeing Silhouette leading the campaign for the right of a person to marry themselves? So that when he dies he can inherit his own estate! And visit himself in the hospital! And file a joint return with himself! Hmmm wouldn't marrying yourself be an particularly odd version of homosexuality? Not just attracted to your own gender- but exclusively to yourself?

Syriusly, aren't you the one who constantly keeps quoting Justice Kennedy's words that children currently being deprived of the benefits of marriage are in "immediate legal harm"? You would discard those tens of millions in single parent households? Why do you hate those kids?..

Like I said- we are all looking forward to your campaign for your right to marry yourself.

Unlike you- I am not arguing against the parents of any kids.

Unlike you- i am not arguing to deprive the children of gay parents the benefits of marriage.

Like the Bible says, teach these little ones to sin, and it best that a person place a talent around their neck, and to SINK themselves to the bottom of the sea. It's going to be that bad for them come the judgement, so if they want to make their bed on that bed of nails then so be it.

And you maintain your personal fantasies of children 'getting it bad' on judgment day. Meanwhile, gays and lesbians will continue to marry, have kids, and go about their lives.

Now see there you go again..I mean you just can't help yourself can you ?.. I said that adults who teach children to sin will get it bad on judgement day, and not the children for they were innocent when bad things become a normal thing to come into their lives, and this because bad adults made it that away for them.

So when you said 'them' in Its going to be bad for them come the judgement', you weren't referring to children? Or you weren't referring to judgment day when you referred to 'the judgment'?

See, Beagle....my quotes are accurate. Its your story that changes as you desperately backpedal. Keep running.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'll do this one for you, and that's it.... The whole book is of course to be believed, and just because things changed within the book, and throughout the generations, does not make the point that was being made wrong now does it ?

So when you said 'the new testament and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it'
you meant that either the whole book is believed or it isn't?

You tried to take something of old (cherry picked it), and then you tried to apply it to this conversation in an attempt to make someone look silly with it or to confuse others with it, but you fail because people aren't that dumb or simple as you think that they are. It's an old trick that is played over and over again by the ones who work for the evil one in these ways, and this is why it fails today for you, so get with the program or speak when you know better how to conduct yourself in a far more better and truthful way. I mean you might be more believable then, but for now your just exposed.

Oh my, a direct and accurate quote. How devious of me.

Beagle means that you should believe all of it the way he does, but he is unable to explain it, so just trust him, I guess.

 

[Silhouette]

Those are all lawsuits based upon public accomodation laws. Churches are exempt from public accomodation laws. Any lawsuits against a church would therefore be dismissed at the first hearing. But yes- there would be idiots who would attempt such a lawsuit. Any idiot can file a lawsuit, just like any idiot can claim that it is still illegal for gay couples to marry in California.

But isn't a church simply a congregation of christians? How is it more or less than that? And if christians have been successfully forced to promote gay-lifestyle "marriages" in violation of their core faith values, how is it again that this would legally protect a congregation of them?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those are all lawsuits based upon public accomodation laws. Churches are exempt from public accomodation laws. Any lawsuits against a church would therefore be dismissed at the first hearing. But yes- there would be idiots who would attempt such a lawsuit. Any idiot can file a lawsuit, just like any idiot can claim that it is still illegal for gay couples to marry in California.

But isn't a church simply a congregation of christians? How is it more or less than that? And if christians have been successfully forced to promote gay-lifestyle "marriages" in violation of their core faith values, how is it again that this would legally protect a congregation of them?

 

[beagle9]

beagle and Sil continue to flail as the thread's fail becomes ever more apparent.

I'd hardly call 82% a "fail"...the poll above and the 50,000 views on this most popular thread in USMB's history are anything but a "fail"...

Do you think your spin on the truth has that potent of an effect?

(Translation: PLEASE! Moderators please make this thread go away right now especially!!)

I cannot begin to wrap my head around this. How is it that you see a poll affirming that the vast majority of the USMB is AGAINST churches being forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual partners, and come away with the idea that it shows churches WILL be forced to do that very thing?

The reason is the evidence that has been found in the recent and/or not so recent attacks on Christians, and this being coupled with the judges now siding with the homosexuals on marriage, in which is a new thing for the gay's and lesbians. Some in society may feel or do feel that it is just the tip of the iceberg on what is yet to come in it all, and they wonder if the two can exist together without going after one another's beliefs in life, and this because a judge or judges have decided to go along with a new idea that gay's and lesbians should be married just like heteros have been married in the past. I guess the 82% that Sil is talking about, is that she looks at it like 82% would not go along with the gay's and lesbians taking it any further than it is going right now (i.e. to force a church to marry them against the churches will).

 

[beagle9]

Aren't we all looking forward to seeing Silhouette leading the campaign for the right of a person to marry themselves? So that when he dies he can inherit his own estate! And visit himself in the hospital! And file a joint return with himself! Hmmm wouldn't marrying yourself be an particularly odd version of homosexuality? Not just attracted to your own gender- but exclusively to yourself?

Syriusly, aren't you the one who constantly keeps quoting Justice Kennedy's words that children currently being deprived of the benefits of marriage are in "immediate legal harm"? You would discard those tens of millions in single parent households? Why do you hate those kids?..

Like I said- we are all looking forward to your campaign for your right to marry yourself.

Unlike you- I am not arguing against the parents of any kids.

Unlike you- i am not arguing to deprive the children of gay parents the benefits of marriage.

Like the Bible says, teach these little ones to sin, and it best that a person place a talent around their neck, and to SINK themselves to the bottom of the sea. It's going to be that bad for them come the judgement, so if they want to make their bed on that bed of nails then so be it.

Lets talk about that one a little bit- shall we?

A Gay couple has children- but is not married. The 'sin' those children would be learning, I think you would say, is that homosexuality is okay, but those children would also be learning about 'adultery' in the same way(sex outside of marriage)

A Gay couple has children- and then gets married- the children would then be observing only the 'sin' of homosexuality- but no longer adultery.

The only difference between the two is that in the second instance the children now have married parents. Why specifically are you opposed to that?

Sin is sin no matter what goes on in it all, and it is that we should try our best to avoid it as best we can, and to do what the Lord wants for us to do in life as best we can. We must try and do at the best of our abilities to not sin if we can help it, and definitely we are not to teach our children to sin... We are not perfect at all ourselves in life, but to teach the children to sin as we would (IMHO) is a huge mistake that will seal the deal quickly for us if we do this thing knowingly I really do believe. The main thing for believers in Christianity like me, is to not get caught up in these things in agreement of, and to not partake in such things as if we would agree with such things, nor to support any sin as the Bible requires that we all should try to avoid as best that we can in life. How all the Christians react to or deal with all of this stuff, and this when it comes knocking at the door and/or passes over, will be interesting to live, see or to observe going forward in life. May the good Lord have mercy upon us all, and to guide us all be it sinners and believers unto his grace and mercy in the days ahead. Amen!

 

[Paperman299]

beagle and Sil continue to flail as the thread's fail becomes ever more apparent.

I'd hardly call 82% a "fail"...the poll above and the 50,000 views on this most popular thread in USMB's history are anything but a "fail"...

Do you think your spin on the truth has that potent of an effect?

(Translation: PLEASE! Moderators please make this thread go away right now especially!!)

I cannot begin to wrap my head around this. How is it that you see a poll affirming that the vast majority of the USMB is AGAINST churches being forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual partners, and come away with the idea that it shows churches WILL be forced to do that very thing?

The reason is the evidence that has been found in the recent and/or not so recent attacks on Christians, and this being coupled with the judges now siding with the homosexuals on marriage, in which is a new thing for the gay's and lesbians. Some in society may feel or do feel that it is just the tip of the iceberg on what is yet to come in it all, and they wonder if the two can exist together without going after one another's beliefs in life, and this because a judge or judges have decided to go along with a new idea that gay's and lesbians should be married just like heteros have been married in the past. I guess the 82% that Sil is talking about, is that she looks at it like 82% would not go along with the gay's and lesbians taking it any further than it is going right now (i.e. to force a church to marry them against the churches will).

But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?

 

[Silhouette]

But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?

82% does not necessarily include homomsexuals. Homosexuals do not comprise 18% of the total population....so that's not a given mathematically. However, give it a few years and homosexuals may outdo 18% and rise even higher....

My evidence for that?

Here:

Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.

• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS

Hey, aren't those the same years the big gay media push/gay marriage push really went into full tilt?.....fads sure catch on with the young..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?

82% does not necessarily include homomsexuals. Homosexuals do not comprise 18% of the total population....so that's not a given mathematically. However, give it a few years and homosexuals may outdo 18% and rise even higher....

My evidence for that?

Here:

Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.

• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS

Hey, aren't those the same years the big gay media push/gay marriage push really went into full tilt?.....fads sure catch on with the young..

Sil, you've lost, completely. How long before you stop beating this dead faggot?

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, you've lost, completely. How long before you stop beating this dead faggot?

I wasn't aware that the Justices of the US Supreme Court had already met, decided on a date to hear the case, heard the case and reversed their Winsor 2013 Findings on states' role in defining marriage as to the question of alternative sexual lifestyle-marriage. Wow, that was fast. Do you have a link to the oral arguments and the Final Decision?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sil, you've lost, completely. How long before you stop beating this dead faggot?

I wasn't aware that the Justices of the US Supreme Court had already met, decided on a date to hear the case, heard the case and reversed their Winsor 2013 Findings on states' role in defining marriage as to the question of alternative sexual lifestyle-marriage. Wow, that was fast. Do you have a link to the oral arguments and the Final Decision?

The direction is obvious. It's legal in most of the US already. Sorry kiddo, you lost.

 

[Silhouette]

The direction is obvious. It's legal in most of the US already. Sorry kiddo, you lost.

Sorry kiddo. That's not what Windsor 2013 or Sutton's Opinion said..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your evaluation of Windsor is imaginary, doesn't exist.

The vote now will be 6-3, maybe even 7-2. None of the judges want to be on the wrong side of an opinion as momentous as Brown.

Lie to yourself all you want; the rest of us will just step back and let you flounder.

 

[Silhouette]

Your evaluation of Windsor is imaginary, doesn't exist.

The vote now will be 6-3, maybe even 7-2. None of the judges want to be on the wrong side of an opinion as momentous as Brown.

Lie to yourself all you want; the rest of us will just step back and let you flounder.

If you are so sure the Court will reverse Windsor at 6-3 or 7-2, then I guess the Hearing will be a mere formality?