Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

Offender....I wasn't aware praciting religion is an offense, for passively refusing to do something that is forbidden by your faith.

 

[Silhouette]

Duh, we already know all this Clay-Ton, what we are speaking about is the coming storms by evidence of the storms that have been raging already.. LOL

The bill of rights has been overturned?

Driving isn't a right. Marriage isn't a right. If it was, everyone could drive or get married. But that isn't appropriate on the road or the formative environment of kids.

 

[beagle9]

One of those places is a man's heart... For where else does religion and the freedom of it ultimately reside?

Saying the religion in my heart tells me to shoot ******* and fuck 12-year-olds isn't going to keep me out of jail. Just because you think God requires you to hate the faggots doesn't mean we have to let you get your way in all situations.

And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on Christians and Christianity, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, it should be realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as Christians (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good Christians like you all have been doing lately.
.

Let me show you the irony of your post:

And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on homosexuals and homosexuality, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, should realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as Christians (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good Christians like you all have been doing lately.

As I have shown in my responses to you- for every action you call an 'attack on Christians', I can show equal or worse attacks by Christians on homosexuals.

What you justify as 'a few fanatics or radicals' when they are Christians could equally be applied to those homosexuals you disagree with.

You are blind to your hypocrisy on this issue.

IF you want to argue that Christians are under attack- then homosexuals are at least as much under attack- because homosexuals are actually being physically harmed just for being homosexuals in the United States.

Don't play around with the words in my postings and then re-post them, and I don't care if you are trying to show some sort of irony or what ever by doing that. Make your point as you did afterwards, it will work just the same.
You could have said replace the word Christian in the post above with homosexual, and that would have worked also... Just saying!

And you don't address or respond to my point.

Let me show you the irony of your post- again- by simply replacing one word.

And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on homosexuals and homosexuality, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, should realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as homosexuals (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good homosexuals like you all have been doing lately.

As I have shown in my responses to you- for every action you call an 'attack on Christians', I can show equal or worse attacks by Christians on homosexuals.

What you justify as 'a few fanatics or radicals' when they are Christians could equally be applied to those homosexuals you disagree with.

You are blind to your hypocrisy on this issue.

IF you want to argue that Christians are under attack- then homosexuals are at least as much under attack- because homosexuals are actually being physically harmed just for being homosexuals in the United States

Isn't it a violation of site rules for changing the words or even a word that changes the original meaning of a post, and then re-posting that post without the posters permission ? Heck someone of your ilk doesn't care about that now do you ??... Why is your kind such a rude and obnoxious people to deal with I wonder ????... Folks these are the kinds of people that are taking over your country, and you want THIS for your future ?????? What kind of fools are the people in this nation anymore to want these kinds of characters to be in control of this nation now or anytime in the near or far future ????????? I mean look at the devastation they are causing in this nation in so many ways, and all the while they are constantly claiming to be the victims or rather they are always claiming that they are helping the so called victims while doing so ? Kidding me right ?

Victim-hood works I guess, but who wants to live their lives claiming to be a victim all the time ? I guess if it pays dividends, so it is that a lot of people do these days...Duh I answered my own question just that quick..LOL

 

[beagle9]

Offender....I wasn't aware practicing religion is an offense, for passively refusing to do something that is forbidden by your faith.

This is the one they have just got to get around, but it has them in desperation mode in trying to do so..LOL

When you have to file a lawsuit, you are in desperation mode at that point...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Isn't it a violation of site rules for changing the words or even a word that changes the original meaning of a post, and then re-posting that post without the posters permission ?

Yes it is, however that is not what was done.

That rule (and a Mod can correct me if I'm wrong) applies to quoting the individual in a quote box, changing the text, and attributing it to that individual. Making a change OUTSIDE the quote box in your own reply means the text is not attributable to the original poster, it's actually the new poster typing the new text.

For example:

I had a lamb whose fleece was white as snow.

I had a lamb whose fleece was black as coal.

This is what you really meant.

The above would be a violation of the rule as it changes the quote inside the box saying that Mary said something she didn't say.

On the other hand:

I had a lamb whose fleece was white as snow.

Let me change that: I had a lamb whose fleece was black as coal.

That wouldn't be a violation since it is clear the text wasn't actually a quote of Mary. Hope that helps.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

I mean look at the devastation they are causing in this nation in so many ways, and all the while they are constantly claiming to be the victims or rather they are always claiming that they are helping the so called victims while doing so ? Kidding me right ?

Please, be so kind as to cite this "devastations" "they" are causing "in this nation in so many ways". Be very specific.

 

[Syriusly]

Saying the religion in my heart tells me to shoot ******* and fuck 12-year-olds isn't going to keep me out of jail. Just because you think God requires you to hate the faggots doesn't mean we have to let you get your way in all situations.

And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on Christians and Christianity, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, it should be realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as Christians (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good Christians like you all have been doing lately.
.

Let me show you the irony of your post:

And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on homosexuals and homosexuality, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, should realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as Christians (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good Christians like you all have been doing lately.

As I have shown in my responses to you- for every action you call an 'attack on Christians', I can show equal or worse attacks by Christians on homosexuals.

What you justify as 'a few fanatics or radicals' when they are Christians could equally be applied to those homosexuals you disagree with.

You are blind to your hypocrisy on this issue.

IF you want to argue that Christians are under attack- then homosexuals are at least as much under attack- because homosexuals are actually being physically harmed just for being homosexuals in the United States.

Don't play around with the words in my postings and then re-post them, and I don't care if you are trying to show some sort of irony or what ever by doing that. Make your point as you did afterwards, it will work just the same.
You could have said replace the word Christian in the post above with homosexual, and that would have worked also... Just saying!

And you don't address or respond to my point.

Let me show you the irony of your post- again- by simply replacing one word.

And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on homosexuals and homosexuality, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, should realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as homosexuals (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good homosexuals like you all have been doing lately.

As I have shown in my responses to you- for every action you call an 'attack on Christians', I can show equal or worse attacks by Christians on homosexuals.

What you justify as 'a few fanatics or radicals' when they are Christians could equally be applied to those homosexuals you disagree with.

You are blind to your hypocrisy on this issue.

IF you want to argue that Christians are under attack- then homosexuals are at least as much under attack- because homosexuals are actually being physically harmed just for being homosexuals in the United States

Isn't it a violation of site rules for changing the words or even a word that changes the original meaning of a post, and then re-posting that post without the posters permission ? Heck someone of your ilk doesn't care about that now do you ??... Why is your kind such a rude and obnoxious people to deal with I wonder ????...L

Please point out where I changed any words in your post- I am not aware that I changed any- your words are shown as your words.

What I did do is copy your post, pasted it -and substituted /homosexuals/ for 'Christians' and clearly showed that as my post- and I did so openly and said as much

Let me show you the irony of your post- again- by simply replacing one word.

Rather than deal with the content of my post- showing you how what you are claiming could be applied just as equally to homosexuals- you just want to continue to claim victimhood.

 

[Syriusly]

Offender....I wasn't aware practicing religion is an offense, for passively refusing to do something that is forbidden by your faith.

This is the one they have just got to get around, but it has them in desperation mode in trying to do so..LOL

When you have to file a lawsuit, you are in desperation mode at that point...

People file lawsuits all the time- the NRA- Christians- homosexuals- Republicans- Democrats- blacks- whites.

Or are you once again just claiming it is wrong when homosexuals do it?

 

[Syriusly]

Duh, we already know all this Clay-Ton, what we are speaking about is the coming storms by evidence of the storms that have been raging already.. LOL

The bill of rights has been overturned?

Driving isn't a right. Marriage isn't a right. If it was, everyone could drive or get married. But that isn't appropriate on the road or the formative environment of kids.

Driving isn't a right. Driving is a privilege.
Marriage is a right.

Seriously how many times do I have to post the Supreme Court saying- yes marriage is a right.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Lovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[Syriusly]

Offender....I wasn't aware praciting religion is an offense, for passively refusing to do something that is forbidden by your faith.

Is it possible that the reason why you don't understand anything is because you just don't understand the written word?


If you don't think that a law is correct- it is your right is to file a lawsuit.
If you think someone is violating a regulation- your right is often to file a lawsuit.

And it doesn't matter what religion either the person suing or the person being sued is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I mean look at the devastation they are causing in this nation in so many ways, and all the while they are constantly claiming to be the victims or rather they are always claiming that they are helping the so called victims while doing so ? Kidding me right ?

Please, be so kind as to cite this "devastations" "they" are causing "in this nation in so many ways". Be very specific.

Are you serious?

The Ideological Left has attacked nearly every essential standard that can be attacked, claiming, in essence, that 'standards themselves are discriminatory' thus lowering the standards to accommodate those who would not otherwise meet the standard.

This is lowered performance in marriage, education, the military, business, religion, personal life and in every facet of the culture.

Now... if you deny that, which is an axiomatic certainty, you need only show where the left's attack upon essential standards has INCREASED PERFORMANCE... .

(There's something you need to know... lowering a standard has NEVER inspired ANYONE, ANYWHERE, AT ANY TIME to increase performance.)

 

[Syriusly]

I mean look at the devastation they are causing in this nation in so many ways, and all the while they are constantly claiming to be the victims or rather they are always claiming that they are helping the so called victims while doing so ? Kidding me right ?

Please, be so kind as to cite this "devastations" "they" are causing "in this nation in so many ways". Be very specific.

Are you serious?

The Ideological Left has attacked nearly every essential standard that can be attacked, claiming, in essence, that 'standards themselves are discriminatory' thus lowering the standards to accommodate those who would not otherwise meet the standard.
.

Prove your bat shit ideologically partisan claims.

 

[Skylar]

The bill of rights has been overturned?

Driving isn't a right. Marriage isn't a right. If it was, everyone could drive or get married. But that isn't appropriate on the road or the formative environment of kids.[/QUOTE]

Says you. The USSC says that marriage is a right. Legally speaking, they're authoritative. And you're not.

 

[Skylar]

I mean look at the devastation they are causing in this nation in so many ways, and all the while they are constantly claiming to be the victims or rather they are always claiming that they are helping the so called victims while doing so ? Kidding me right ?

Please, be so kind as to cite this "devastations" "they" are causing "in this nation in so many ways". Be very specific.

Are you serious?

The Ideological Left has attacked nearly every essential standard that can be attacked, claiming, in essence, that 'standards themselves are discriminatory' thus lowering the standards to accommodate those who would not otherwise meet the standard.

And who, pray tell, is the 'ideological left'?

And the left doesn't reject standards. It just rejects you setting them.

 

[Silhouette]

Driving isn't a right. Marriage isn't a right. If it was, everyone could drive or get married. But that isn't appropriate on the road or the formative environment of kids.

Says you. The USSC says that marriage is a right. Legally speaking, they're authoritative. And you're not.

Blind people by their structure do not fit the structure of driving. They would cause harm to others on the road. So they cannot get a driver's license.

Homosexual people, by their structure harm children in the home by depriving them of the vital complimentary role model 100% of the time, which may be the child's own gender and therefore source of self esteem. Homosexuals by their relationship structure harm the structure of marriage that is best for children: the most important people in marriage.

Blind drivers harm people. It's not the blind person's fault, they were born or made that way by circumstance. It's just that their driving is unsafe for other people. In other words when considering the blind for driving, the state finds that there are other human interests besides the blind person's civil rights to take into account.

Likewise when considering gays for marriage, the state finds that there are other human interests besides the homosexuals' "civil rights" to take into account. Marriage almost always involves more people than those on the license. In this case, people still in their formative years to be future citizens.

 

[Skylar]

Blind people by their structure do not fit the structure of driving. They would cause harm to others on the road. So they cannot get a driver's license.

Again, the issue of whether or not marriage is a right is long settled. It is. And a fundamental right.

You can disagree of course. But neither your agreement nor your disagreement have any relevance on any USSC ruling, as the case law has already answered this question. And case law will be the standard by which the courts will most likely decide the issue.

If you want a discussion on whether not it *should* be a right, I'm up for it. But whether or not it is a right in our law isn't a matter of debate. Its a matter of precedent.

 

[Syriusly]

Driving isn't a right. Marriage isn't a right. If it was, everyone could drive or get married. But that isn't appropriate on the road or the formative environment of kids.

Says you. The USSC says that marriage is a right. Legally speaking, they're authoritative. And you're not.

Homosexual people, by their structure harm children in the home.

First of all- that is just your unsubstantiated opinion.

Secondly- that has nothing to do with marriage.

As I keep pointing out, prohibiting gay marriage just ensures those children will not have married parents.

Of course the next step by your kind would be to start taking children away from their gay parents.....leading logically to demanding that pregnant lesbians get abortions.......

Next think you know, Christians will be suing lesbians to have them sterilized.....all to protect the children....

 

[Silhouette]

As I keep pointing out, prohibiting gay marriage just ensures those children will not have married parents. Of course the next step by your kind would be to start taking children away from their gay parents.....leading logically to demanding that pregnant lesbians get abortions.......Next think you know, Christians will be suing lesbians to have them sterilized.....all to protect the children....

Wow, hyperbole much? Not one child has been taken away from any gay parent because they were gay. Conversely, many rights have been taken away in courts from christian bakers, florists etc. Churches are nothing more than congregations if individual christians.

When we deny a blind person a driver's license, do we hate them? Are we trying to punish them? Or are we trying to protect "the others involved in the blind person's "driving experience"?..

 

[Skylar]

Driving isn't a right. Marriage isn't a right. If it was, everyone could drive or get married. But that isn't appropriate on the road or the formative environment of kids.

Says you. The USSC says that marriage is a right. Legally speaking, they're authoritative. And you're not.

Homosexual people, by their structure harm children in the home.

First of all- that is just your unsubstantiated opinion.

Secondly- that has nothing to do with marriage.

As I keep pointing out, prohibiting gay marriage just ensures those children will not have married parents.

Of course the next step by your kind would be to start taking children away from their gay parents.....leading logically to demanding that pregnant lesbians get abortions.......

Next think you know, Christians will be suing lesbians to have them sterilized.....all to protect the children....

There have already been gay marriage opponents that have insisted that gays and lesbians should be legally prohibited from ever having children. They didn't explain how that would be enforced.

 

[Silhouette]

There have already been gay marriage opponents that have insisted that gays and lesbians should be legally prohibited from ever having children. They didn't explain how that would be enforced.

Have they taken gays to court and won? No.

Have gays taken christians to court to force them to abdicate their edicts to promote a gay lifestyle culture, and won? Yes, yes they have. Proof is in the pudding. I'm sure there are some whackos in the world that have said all manner of things about everything under the sun. It's when the courts support those words when the public should sit up and take notice.