Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

And by 'self righteous behavior', you mean demanding the same rights as everyone else?

Nobody I know of has "rights" to marry except under the structure that has always been known and synonymous with the word "marriage". And that is a man marrying a woman. Not a man marrying three or five women. Not women marrying women. Just, man/woman. The word marriage cannot be used to describe anything society has not agreed it means.

Maybe gays and polygamists can be "hitched" or "melded" or "flobbygoosted"....but not "married"..

 

[Skylar]

Nobody I know of has "rights" to marry except under the structure that has always been known and synonymous with the word "marriage".

But you're hamstrung by the misconception that marriage isn't a right, citing only yourself. But your arbitrary declarations of personal opinion as fact don't have much meaning to the rest of us. And thus don't form the foundation of any reasonable argument. Marriage is a right in our system of law. That you disagree is irrelevant.

And that is a man marrying a woman.

In 36 of 50 states marriage is also a man marrying a man. Or a woman marrying a woman. That you don't know any of them personally doesn't change this fact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Will the same apply to Mosques? The problem with the gay community is the gay community and their self righteous behavior.

Staidhup, the problem for you is, of course, mr. hypocrite, the far right social con Christians are getting what they deserve.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And by 'self righteous behavior', you mean demanding the same rights as everyone else?

Nobody I know of has "rights" to marry except under the structure that has always been known and synonymous with the word "marriage". And that is a man marrying a woman. Not a man marrying three or five women. Not women marrying women. Just, man/woman. The word marriage cannot be used to describe anything society has not agreed it means.

Maybe gays and polygamists can be "hitched" or "melded" or "flobbygoosted"....but not "married"..

Of course they have in the past, now, and in the future.

The only question is the imprimatur of the state approving marriage equality, and, guess what, Sil?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil and Where think they are authorities, and have no one else to cite now, they cite themselves.

What a giggle.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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)

Do not use words unless you know what they mean. "Adultery" is NOT sex without 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?

Please stop listening to the voices in your head, Silly.

 

[beagle9]

Whether the case concerned black people, gay people, or people from a Renaissance faire is irrelevant.

a) You can't refuse to serve a type of people based on religious grounds

b) this has never come back to infringe on, specifically, the church's right to refuse to marry whoever they wanted.

Yes, Windsor 2013 says states get to define which lifestyles may set examples for children. They say overwhelmingly that that structure for the benefit of children must include representatives from both the childrens' genders, not just one.

A church is merely a congregation of individual christians. And as such, a church's individual components most certainly have been sued in attempts to force them to abdicate their faith in favor of promoting the LGBT cult values "in marriage". In fact, entire states' majorities have been sued and forced to abdicate their own democratic rule when it comes to setting paramaters for childrens' best formative environments.

Properly, hundreds of millions of people have been forced to swallow LGBT cult values that are repugnant to them...to adopt a repugnant lifestyle directly into ground-zero of their future citizens' (childrens') formative environment.

If you think for one minute that the congregation of indivdiual christans/voters will not be sued to accomodate "gay weddings" you are on drugs buddy..

I wonder if the coming after marriage, was just another attempt to get at or after another Christian value, or it's belief system in which has long held definitions of what our traditions are or did mean to most of us within this nation ? I wonder if it was just all in order to break the Christians down in this nation maybe one more level or notch in order that the Christians would not be as influential in either creating or promoting some long held American values for America or for the Americans any longer, and to get after it's core principles as they were once known within the nation by all for a many a year looking back at it all now ?

Yes there were fanatics always in every group in this nation, and there were huge mistakes made of course by the allowing of certain peoples to then infiltrate a group, and then to attempt to represent wrongfully the group or the Christian groups that allowed this to happen to them also, but I think that the core was always solid in the end, and the majority believed in that core in which led so many out of the wilderness when it was all said and done. It created the peaceful nation in which we have here today, where we all have within reason the freedom to go and come as we please, and to live within reason as we please. Now as so many are choosing differently these days, and are going their own ways, will we find added peace and harmony or will it begin to crumble what had been built here over the hundreds of years now ?

Could it be that Christians are being blamed for all the troubles or set backs in which the gay's and lesbians have experienced over the years ? Is this held maybe within their minds ? Is it that the Christians have got to be broken down in order to remove the obstacles that stand in the way of them having total freedoms to bring their lifestyle or culture out completely into the main stream finally ? I mean it is out now, but how far will it all go as far as with the Christians remaining free to practice their faith in the public and/or even in their private lives I wonder ? Will Christians be able to still practice and teach their children what they teach them without being called out on it, and will they be told that they are wrong for teaching Christian beliefs, values, and principles unto their young and up and coming ? Will it all push Christians into hiding their teachings and values so that they won't be punished for them, and this when they come out into the public while having such beliefs and teachings held within their hearts ? Pandora's box holds many unknowns in all of this, so one has to look at the past events now in order to understand the future or to be cautious of the future as we all move forward in it.

I mean the liberal media touts openly all the time their speakings about the whites will soon be the minority in so many years in this nation, as if that is a great thing when they say it, so could it be that the same sentiment is thought of when thinking about Christians also in this nation ? I mean hey the ones speaking this mess about the whites in that way, are doing so because they see the whites as a constant and future threat to people of brown color, and so in the heat of discussions this kind of speak by them comes out, but is it true ? Nope! The only thing that is true in life's journey's for many is the culture clashes that can pop up, and this happens when one culture collides with another in a crowded way, so how do we keep the cultures happy in the nation or to speak in ways that brings peace always instead of turmoil and chaos in the nation ? It wasn't a problem before, because people mostly believed in the same things by a majority in which the nation was founded upon and had as it's core values & principles based upon. Being an American meant something to all, and they all figured out a way to live as one nation, under God, and with liberty and justice for all. So what happened ?

Now does the government feel that through it's actions, that it is making this nation more compatible for all who live here or does it even know what it is doing when it deals with all these things now ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

A lot of voices in your head, Beagle. The rest of America does not want to be like First Baptist or whatever you attend.

 

[kaz]

Ding, ding, ding! I am a small government libertarian. I argue in discussions we don't need government to do that and you hold me to a completely different standard than you do for yourself. You always advocate government. I usually oppose government. The former is OK (to you), the latter is not.

I argue that the State has every authority to make PA laws (which you don't dispute)

Correct

and that its reasonable for the State to require minimum standards of fairness and equality of those conducting business with the public in the State.

Yes, that's the discussion. Maybe you can participate now that you're clear on the question.

Its essentially irrelevant to this discussion, as whether or not you believe they should exist doesn't change the fact that they do. What we're discussing now is the scope of such laws, fairness in application, civil law v. religious liberty, etc.

If you want to have a discussion on whether or not PA laws should exist, start a thread.

I responded to posts on PA laws. Yet the only one you whine about is me. LOL. Of course you are.

The PA laws are. You can pretend that they aren't, or lament about they shouldn't be. But they are.

Within that reality, I'd be happy to discuss PA laws with you. If all you want to do is discuss whether PA laws should exist, then start a thread of your own. Because this isn't it.

Your instructions on what I am and am not allowed to discuss are noted. How do you get your head through doorways?

 

[kaz]

Enjoying? No, I don't, pretty clearly.

Right...sorry. Hates taking advantage of...but does it just the same.

Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married. As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.

Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.

I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.

You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her? Wow, I didn't know that. You are like my wife.

You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.

Gays marry for the same reasons you did.

Because you weren't getting your partner out of her parent's house without a piece of paper? Seriously? I didn't know parents of gays were to adamant that you have a government marriage even when there isn't such a thing. This is very educational. So you only date conservative Republican Christians from the upper crust of a traditional Korean background who are OK with their kids being gay but not OK with them leaving the house without a piece of paper.

I have to tell you, I think you're full of shit. I don't believe that.

 

[kaz]

Do you write for Ron Paul's newsletter?

Rand has walked back his comments on the issue. There is no will to get rid of PA laws.

And shouldn't Libertarians be supporting states rights when it comes to PA laws?

We support that the Federal government should stay out of it and that States should not implement them. Explain the contradiction in that. I don't get it.

But when they do, it's their state right, right?

Simple concepts are so difficult to grasp for liberals. I'll break it down more.

Federal government - They have no say either way in PA laws. There is no Constitutional authority, therefore by the 10th amendment that power is prohibited to them. The Federal government cannot require PA laws, it can also not restrict PA laws. It cannot prevent States from implementing them.

State governments - They have the Constitutional authority by the 10th amendment to implement them or not to implement them. I oppose them implementing them.

What you said is right, but you're still asking it as a question. Have we connected yet?

Everywhere they are implemented for gays, it's at the state and local level.

And what is the relevance of that since I haven't mentioned the Federal government in my argument? I am against PA laws. I keep getting asked by liberals about the Federal level. I am not obsessed with one size fits all government like you are. I am pro-choice, but I think the Feds should stay out of it. I'm against the death penalty, but I think the feds should stay out of it. I think drugs should be legal, but I think the feds should stay out of it. I'm against PA laws, but I think the feds should stay out of it. Believing in the 10th amendment doesn't mean I'm for or against a particular position on the issue. I don't get your or Sylar or other liberal's obsession with that.

 

[beagle9]

Whether the case concerned black people, gay people, or people from a Renaissance faire is irrelevant.

a) You can't refuse to serve a type of people based on religious grounds

b) this has never come back to infringe on, specifically, the church's right to refuse to marry whoever they wanted.

Yes, Windsor 2013 says states get to define which lifestyles may set examples for children. They say overwhelmingly that that structure for the benefit of children must include representatives from both the childrens' genders, not just one.

A church is merely a congregation of individual christians. And as such, a church's individual components most certainly have been sued in attempts to force them to abdicate their faith in favor of promoting the LGBT cult values "in marriage". In fact, entire states' majorities have been sued and forced to abdicate their own democratic rule when it comes to setting paramaters for childrens' best formative environments.

Properly, hundreds of millions of people have been forced to swallow LGBT cult values that are repugnant to them...to adopt a repugnant lifestyle directly into ground-zero of their future citizens' (childrens') formative environment.

If you think for one minute that the congregation of indivdiual christans/voters will not be sued to accomodate "gay weddings" you are on drugs buddy..

So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?

If all the groups now wanting something new in life, didn't have the black issue or arguments to attach their cause to, then they would be completely lost in life. Think about it...

The black issues were solved in America, and the wrong was realized in the SPECIFIC issues of discrimination against ones color or race, but it doesn't mean that it will apply to every issue that is brought up today. So don't feel bad if it didn't apply to your issue, because it might not, and if it doesn't then get over it right ?

Now everyone don't stop fighting for what you might believe in OK, because hey some in the past who thought they were right on something, well they were proved to be wrong on that something also. There could be a chance that some could be wrong today just as well.

Now know this though, that somethings are just wrong in the eyes of many, and it could be a huge task or a huge up hill battle to get people to give in on an issue, so if people are up to the task then so be it, but don't wake up one morning to realize that maybe you were wrong, and that your whole life was wasted.trying to fight for something that was wrong, because sometimes that can happen also. The KKK found that out in concerns of discrimination against a persons race, because they ridiculously figured that a people could not have equality based upon their color, when we all know that there are some great black people within our midst, and they had proven themselves as able as anyone else was in life, and also to be as good as or as great as any citizens are within this nation.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Enjoying? No, I don't, pretty clearly.

Right...sorry. Hates taking advantage of...but does it just the same.

Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married. As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.

Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.

I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.

You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her? Wow, I didn't know that. You are like my wife.

You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.

Gays marry for the same reasons you did.

To produce a family through the natural procreative process?

I don't think so.

 

[kaz]

Right...sorry. Hates taking advantage of...but does it just the same.

Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married. As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.

Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.

I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.

You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her? Wow, I didn't know that. You are like my wife.

You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.

Gays marry for the same reasons you did.

To produce a family through the natural procreative process?

I don't think so.

That isn't why I got married. At least not the government part of it. I think government in marriage is irrelevant.

What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper. I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.

 

[Silhouette]

That isn't why I got married. At least not the government part of it. I think government in marriage is irrelevant.

What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper. I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.

Plan B: If an orchestrated flame war doesn't work, begin discussing personal details of poster's lives; another thing the moderators forbid and that almost always succeeds in getting a thread shut down.

Y'all really don't like the poll results at the top of the page, do you?

 

[kaz]

That isn't why I got married. At least not the government part of it. I think government in marriage is irrelevant.

What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper. I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.

Plan B: If an orchestrated flame war doesn't work, begin discussing personal details of poster's lives; another thing the moderators forbid and that almost always succeeds in getting a thread shut down.

Y'all really don't like the poll results at the top of the page, do you?

All I said is why I got married. How is that talking about anyone but me? I find seawytch's claim she wants marriage for the same reason to be ridiculous, but I don't see how that's an attack on anyone either. It's pretty much impossible to discuss marriage without indirectly referring to who we are married to. But I don't see how any of it either way was critical in any way of the other's partner. Maybe you can shed light on that. This is a thread about gay marriage.

As for you claim on the poll, again, don't get it. I am against government marriage. All I said was government has no part in it. I was married by a minister to my wife. That does matter to me. So obviously I voted with the majority on this.

 

[Edgetho]

I don't care where I go, what Board, what internet community, it doesn't matter....

A thread about queers breaks every single record ever set

Every time.

Talk about boring.

That is all

 

[Silhouette]

I don't care where I go, what Board, what internet community, it doesn't matter....

A thread about queers breaks every single record ever set

Every time.

Talk about boring.

That is all

Well, the topic sure is popular I'll grant you that. It isn't every day a deviant sex cult takes on christianity with the expressed intent to stamp its moral edicts out of existence...and wins in courts...

So yeah, it's popular. Sorry the destruction of the Constitutional protections has you in such a state of boredom. Thankfully while some like you sit on your ass, others are proactive keeping the principles and structure of decency preserved as best we can in this day and age..

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married. As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.

Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.

I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.

You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her? Wow, I didn't know that. You are like my wife.

You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.

Gays marry for the same reasons you did.

To produce a family through the natural procreative process?

I don't think so.

That isn't why I got married. At least not the government part of it. I think government in marriage is irrelevant.

What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper. I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.

Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite. I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time. She said I was lying. I cast pearls before swine.

If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.

 

[Seawytch]

Right...sorry. Hates taking advantage of...but does it just the same.

Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married. As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.

Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.

I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.

You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her? Wow, I didn't know that. You are like my wife.

You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.

Gays marry for the same reasons you did.

Because you weren't getting your partner out of her parent's house without a piece of paper? Seriously? I didn't know parents of gays were to adamant that you have a government marriage even when there isn't such a thing. This is very educational. So you only date conservative Republican Christians from the upper crust of a traditional Korean background who are OK with their kids being gay but not OK with them leaving the house without a piece of paper.

I have to tell you, I think you're full of shit. I don't believe that.

I do recall you saying that at the time you asked her to marry you, you wanted that "gubmit" marriage and that you came to your loathing of it later in life. Are you taking that back now?

Gays marry for all the same reasons straights do. Let me know how your protests of city clerks offices are going.