Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[kaz]

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.

I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.

So being friends with a lesbian couple and having them babysit is the same as hating gays and condemning them to hell. It's no "less." LOL, liberals have no gray at all. It cracks me up when you call Republicans black and white.

I didn't say that. I didn't say he hated gays and condemned them to hell.

Um...that isn't what I said. Your reading comprehension skills are terrible.

I said he was an anti gay bigot. An anti gay bigot is someone who opposes marriage equality for gays or wishes to discriminate against gays.

And you also said "your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot. Hence my point you didn't comprehend.

 

[kaz]

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.

I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.

Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?

Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.

The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.

Now everyone knows you're a liar.

That doesn't support your claim that I called you a liar. I said that your story does not make you less of an anti gay bigot. It does not. You still wish to discriminate against gays and deny them equal access to civil marriage, yes? That is what makes you an anti gay bigot. Knowing and liking a gay couple does not negate your bigotry.

Wow, you seriously need to take remedial reading. He did show you called him a liar. Seriously, what is wrong with you? I put it in green for you. You clearly called him a liar.

 

[kaz]

The Pharisees of our religious far right today are interested in controlling others, not their personal welfare or their salvation.

Yes, they are a lot like you liberals

 

[Silhouette]

Meanwhile back to the regularly scheduled topic... Read the logic for forcing a christian to abdicate her faith here. And remember, churches are nothing more than congregations of individual christians who have pledged every waking minute of their lives to their faith, not just on Sunday..

A florist who reportedly refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding because of her religious beliefs is being sued by the Washington State Attorney General...Stutzman told Ingersoll she was unable to provide flowers for his wedding "because of [her] relationship with Jesus Christ," according to the complaint...At the time of the alleged denial, Stutzman was aware Ingersoll's "upcoming wedding for which he was seeking to purchase flowers would be to another man," the complaint stated..."The fact that Mr. Ingersoll, a gay man, was seeking to purchase flowers for his wedding to another man was a substantial factor in [Stutzman's] refusal to sell him flowers," the complaint said. Washington Florist Sued For Refusing to Provide Flowers For Same-Sex Wedding - ABC News

A lesbian couple went to Sweet Cakes, a Gresham, Ore., bakery Jan. 17 to order their wedding cake, but said they were told the bakery didn't serve same-sex marriages...Aaron Klein, who owns Sweet Cakes with his wife, Melissa, told ABC News affiliate KATU-TV he was living in accordance with his religious beliefs when he refused to make the couple a wedding cake..."I honestly did not mean to hurt anybody, didn't mean to make anybody upset, [it's] just something I believe in very strongly," he said....A complaint was filed with the Oregon Department of Justice; however a spokesman told ABCNews.com the couple said last month they planned to move the complaint to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

Another company "Ace of Cakes" offered to bake the gay people a cake for free, but apparently this interfered with their plans to sue the christians and force them to abdicate their faith in favor of the Church of LGBT..

"Ace of Cakes" star Duff Goldman heard about the plight of the brides-to-be and said he would bake them a wedding cake free of charge.

 

[Paperman299]

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.

I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.

Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?

Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.

The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.

Now everyone knows you're a liar.

This...this proves she didn't call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is what she claimed she said...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??

 

[Silhouette]

- Christian photographers Elane Photography in New Mexico were approached by a same sex couple looking to hire a wedding photographer. Elane Photography politely declined citing their Christian faith and were sued by the couple under the state’s anti-discriminatory laws, and won. In New Mexico you apparently have no right to your free expression and practice of faith any longer Gay marriage incompatible with religious freedom Fox News

But don't worry, this is just individual christians...congregations of them are impervious to precedent..

 

[Paperman299]

Meanwhile back to the regularly scheduled topic... Read the logic for forcing a christian to abdicate her faith here. And remember, churches are nothing more than congregations of individual christians who have pledged every waking minute of their lives to their faith, not just on Sunday..

A florist who reportedly refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding because of her religious beliefs is being sued by the Washington State Attorney General...Stutzman told Ingersoll she was unable to provide flowers for his wedding "because of [her] relationship with Jesus Christ," according to the complaint...At the time of the alleged denial, Stutzman was aware Ingersoll's "upcoming wedding for which he was seeking to purchase flowers would be to another man," the complaint stated..."The fact that Mr. Ingersoll, a gay man, was seeking to purchase flowers for his wedding to another man was a substantial factor in [Stutzman's] refusal to sell him flowers," the complaint said. Washington Florist Sued For Refusing to Provide Flowers For Same-Sex Wedding - ABC News

A lesbian couple went to Sweet Cakes, a Gresham, Ore., bakery Jan. 17 to order their wedding cake, but said they were told the bakery didn't serve same-sex marriages...Aaron Klein, who owns Sweet Cakes with his wife, Melissa, told ABC News affiliate KATU-TV he was living in accordance with his religious beliefs when he refused to make the couple a wedding cake..."I honestly did not mean to hurt anybody, didn't mean to make anybody upset, [it's] just something I believe in very strongly," he said....A complaint was filed with the Oregon Department of Justice; however a spokesman told ABCNews.com the couple said last month they planned to move the complaint to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

Another company "Ace of Cakes" offered to bake the gay people a cake for free, but apparently this interfered with their plans to sue the christians and force them to abdicate their faith in favor of the Church of LGBT..

"Ace of Cakes" star Duff Goldman heard about the plight of the brides-to-be and said he would bake them a wedding cake free of charge.

So they chose to sit in at the lunch counter that wouldn't serve them. Good for them.

Anyway, please show me an example of the government forcing a church to conduct an interracial ceremony. Find one instance in the USA where, say, a church was sued over the issue and lost, or where a church lost its tax-exempt status over not providing interracial religious wedding ceremonies. One example.

 

[Silhouette]

So they chose to sit in at the lunch counter that wouldn't serve them. Good for them.

Anyway, please show me an example of the government forcing a church to conduct an interracial ceremony. Find one instance in the USA where, say, a church was sued over the issue and lost, or where a church lost its tax-exempt status over not providing interracial religious wedding ceremonies. One example.

Oh, but lifestyles are in no way equivalent to race. There is no Constitutional provision for either 1. Marriage guarantees or 2. Lifestyle guarantees if the public finds your lifestyle repugnant to the idea of raising children in our state-sanctioneed child-raising institution (marriage license and perks)

Two races marrying does not defy the structure of man/woman that is at the basement of the word "marriage". You cannot dig deeper for reinterpretation. And you most particularly may not do so arbitrarily, trying to plead the church of LGBT's case while pretending polygamists, incest and others will somehow be excluded. That's false advertising. Why do you abandon your legal cousins so readily?

 

[Paperman299]

So they chose to sit in at the lunch counter that wouldn't serve them. Good for them.

Anyway, please show me an example of the government forcing a church to conduct an interracial ceremony. Find one instance in the USA where, say, a church was sued over the issue and lost, or where a church lost its tax-exempt status over not providing interracial religious wedding ceremonies. One example.

Oh, but lifestyles are in no way equivalent to race. There is no Constitutional provision for either 1. Marriage guarantees or 2. Lifestyle guarantees if the public finds your lifestyle repugnant to the idea of raising children in our state-sanctioneed child-raising institution (marriage license and perks)

Two races marrying does not defy the structure of man/woman that is at the basement of the word "marriage". You cannot dig deeper for reinterpretation. And you most particularly may not do so arbitrarily, trying to plead the church of LGBT's case while pretending polygamists, incest and others will somehow be excluded. That's false advertising. Why do you abandon your legal cousins so readily?

What does any of that matter? Once interracial marriage became law, by your logic, there was nothing to stop us cultist-liberals from forcing that kind of equality on churches. Yet in over forty years since the Loving v. Virginia decision, we haven't.

It's not like there isn't racism to fight in this issue in the present day. 2009, a justice of the peace in Louisiana was forced to resign because he wouldn't marry an interracial couple. Surely that sort of racism is also present in pastors and priests across the country. But we haven't yet forced any interracial marriages on private churches.

You've pointed out yourself that us liberals see no difference between homosexual and civil rights issues (though you think we're wrong on this). So why haven't we forced even one church to perform interracial weddings, in all this time? If it's definitely going to happen when same-sex marriages become legal, why didn't it happen for this?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.

Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?

Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.

The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.

Now everyone knows you're a liar.

This...this proves she didn't call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is what she claimed she said...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??

That "him" is me and you have no clue what we were discussing unless you followed the link and read the exchange. That's what happens when you jump in the middle of a conversation you know nothing about.

 

[Silhouette]

St Mike, you still trying to make the bad old poll results at the top go away by role-playing the thread derailer/gay basher? If I was a moderator you'd have been packin' up ages ago..

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, but lifestyles are in no way equivalent to race. There is no Constitutional provision for either 1. Marriage guarantees or 2. Lifestyle guarantees if the public finds your lifestyle repugnant to the idea of raising children in our state-sanctioneed child-raising institution (marriage license and perks)
Two races marrying does not defy the structure of man/woman that is at the basement of the word "marriage". You cannot dig deeper for reinterpretation. And you most particularly may not do so arbitrarily, trying to plead the church of LGBT's case while pretending polygamists, incest and others will somehow be excluded. That's false advertising. Why do you abandon your legal cousins so readily?

What does any of that matter? Once interracial marriage became law, by your logic, there was nothing to stop us cultist-liberals from forcing that kind of equality on churches. Yet in over forty years since the Loving v. Virginia decision, we haven't...

What does it matter? It matters because your premise on which you base all the rest of your "legal deductions" upon is fatally-flawed. Your premise is that "sexual lifestyles are equal to race in Constitutional consideration for protections"...and ..."therefore..."... All that follows "therefore.." in your deduction is completely inadmissable in this discussion. Sorry.


Your "we" have actually in fact sued churches to accomodate "gay weddings". Loving v Virgina ...? That wasn't about deviant sexual lifestyles. That was about race. Black people find this comparison extremely offensive BTW.

Your "we" have sued christian bakers, florist, photographers, restaurants and more, trying to force them to accomdate "gay weddings". A church is the same as an individual christian. They both represent the faith and the 1st Amedment right.

 

[mdk]

St Mike, you still trying to make the bad old poll results at the top go away by role-playing the thread derailer/gay basher? If I was a moderator you'd have been packin' up ages ago..

Stop trying to pass your trash onto us. St. Mike is a part of your anti-gay troupe of mummers. Sorry if that is inconvenient to your narrative and all.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.

Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?

Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.

The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.

Now everyone knows you're a liar.

That doesn't support your claim that I called you a liar. I said that your story does not make you less of an anti gay bigot. It does not. You still wish to discriminate against gays and deny them equal access to civil marriage, yes? That is what makes you an anti gay bigot. Knowing and liking a gay couple does not negate your bigotry.

Yes it does and now you're backpeddling on it. Now you see why I have a policy of believing people when they tell me details about their lives on these discussion board. It's a virtue to give people the benefit of the doubt unless there's strong reason to call it into question.

 

[Silhouette]

A premise gone awry...planned that way...

From: Black Enterprise online:

Gay Rights Are Not The Same As Civil Rights

Growing up in St. Louis, there was no such thing or word as being gay (yes, I am sure they existed, but they definitely were not publicly known or out). So, the gay community studied Blacks and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s and made a conscious decision to adopt—some would say hijack—the language of the Civil Rights community.
They went from gay rights to Civil Rights; from gay marriage to marriage equality. Anyone that knows anything about PR knows that marketing is all about language and communications....

Civil Rights for Blacks was never about acceptance, but rather enforcement of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution had already guaranteed us the very rights we were fighting for—right to vote, right to live anywhere, right to due process, etc. We were not seeking to create a special class of rights based on “choices” we voluntarily made (we were born Black—we did not choose to be Black). We did not choose to come to America nor did we choose to be slaves. So, our Civil Rights movement was about enforcement of the rights we were already guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, in my opinion, there can be no equating Blacks and Civil Rights with gays and special rights! So, for Obama, Sharpton, the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus to equate gay rights with Civil Rights should be an insult not only to the Black community; but also to all who sacrificed for Blacks to gain the Civil Rights that Blacks were already due.

..Gays understood that Americans would not support gay marriage, but who can be against “marriage equality?” What a brilliant PR move!
Republicans need to do a better job of educating the American people that they are not against gay people; they are against “special rights” for gays. If Obama and the Democrats think gay rights is a civil right, then how can they at the same time say they will leave it up to the states to decide the issue? Huh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

stmike got caught yet again, and he will lie about it.

stmike and Sil are joined at the hip and thigh.

Christian churches will not be forced to marry LGBT. There is not the slightest chance that such could happen.

 

[Paperman299]

Oh, but lifestyles are in no way equivalent to race. There is no Constitutional provision for either 1. Marriage guarantees or 2. Lifestyle guarantees if the public finds your lifestyle repugnant to the idea of raising children in our state-sanctioneed child-raising institution (marriage license and perks)
Two races marrying does not defy the structure of man/woman that is at the basement of the word "marriage". You cannot dig deeper for reinterpretation. And you most particularly may not do so arbitrarily, trying to plead the church of LGBT's case while pretending polygamists, incest and others will somehow be excluded. That's false advertising. Why do you abandon your legal cousins so readily?

What does any of that matter? Once interracial marriage became law, by your logic, there was nothing to stop us cultist-liberals from forcing that kind of equality on churches. Yet in over forty years since the Loving v. Virginia decision, we haven't...

What does it matter? It matters because your premise on which you base all the rest of your "legal deductions" upon is fatally-flawed. Your premise is that "sexual lifestyles are equal to race in Constitutional consideration for protections"...and ..."therefore..."... All that follows "therefore.." in your deduction is completely inadmissable in this discussion. Sorry.


Your "we" have actually in fact sued churches to accomodate "gay weddings". Loving v Virgina ...? That wasn't about deviant sexual lifestyles. That was about race. Black people find this comparison extremely offensive BTW.

Your "we" have sued christian bakers, florist, photographers, restaurants and more, trying to force them to accomdate "gay weddings". A church is the same as an individual christian. They both represent the faith and the 1st Amedment right.

You've missed my point again. Try to think critically here. You claim that once equal marriage is the law of the land, that the "LGBT cultists" will force churches to perform same-sex weddings.

In 1967, Loving v. Virginia made interracial marriage the law of the land. The next step, by your own logic, was to force churches to perform interracial marriages. It never happened.

By your own thought process, civil rights is a much more legitimate movement than gay rights, and so it would be even more urgent to force racial equality into churches. But it has never happened. So my question is: why not? Why have we never forced churches to perform interracial marriages? Forget gay rights for a second. Why, when nearly everyone agrees that racism is wrong, have we still not made it law that churches must perform interracial ceremonies?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Oh, but lifestyles are in no way equivalent to race. There is no Constitutional provision for either 1. Marriage guarantees or 2. Lifestyle guarantees if the public finds your lifestyle repugnant to the idea of raising children in our state-sanctioneed child-raising institution (marriage license and perks)
Two races marrying does not defy the structure of man/woman that is at the basement of the word "marriage". You cannot dig deeper for reinterpretation. And you most particularly may not do so arbitrarily, trying to plead the church of LGBT's case while pretending polygamists, incest and others will somehow be excluded. That's false advertising. Why do you abandon your legal cousins so readily?

What does any of that matter? Once interracial marriage became law, by your logic, there was nothing to stop us cultist-liberals from forcing that kind of equality on churches. Yet in over forty years since the Loving v. Virginia decision, we haven't...

What does it matter? It matters because your premise on which you base all the rest of your "legal deductions" upon is fatally-flawed. Your premise is that "sexual lifestyles are equal to race in Constitutional consideration for protections"...and ..."therefore..."... All that follows "therefore.." in your deduction is completely inadmissable in this discussion. Sorry.


Your "we" have actually in fact sued churches to accomodate "gay weddings". Loving v Virgina ...? That wasn't about deviant sexual lifestyles. That was about race. Black people find this comparison extremely offensive BTW.

Your "we" have sued christian bakers, florist, photographers, restaurants and more, trying to force them to accomdate "gay weddings". A church is the same as an individual christian. They both represent the faith and the 1st Amedment right.

You've missed my point again. Try to think critically here. You claim that once equal marriage is the law of the land, that the "LGBT cultists" will force churches to perform same-sex weddings.

In 1967, Loving v. Virginia made interracial marriage the law of the land. The next step, by your own logic, was to force churches to perform interracial marriages. It never happened.

By your own thought process, civil rights is a much more legitimate movement than gay rights, and so it would be even more urgent to force racial equality into churches. But it has never happened. So my question is: why not? Why have we never forced churches to perform interracial marriages? Forget gay rights for a second. Why, when nearly everyone agrees that racism is wrong, have we still not made it law that churches must perform interracial ceremonies?

Bullshit.

Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times

 

[Silhouette]

You've missed my point again. Try to think critically here. You claim that once equal marriage is the law of the land, that the "LGBT cultists" will force churches to perform same-sex weddings.

In 1967, Loving v. Virginia made interracial marriage the law of the land. The next step, by your own logic, was to force churches to perform interracial marriages. It never happened..

What does Loving v Virginia have to do with lifestyles forcing people to integrate them into marriage? Wasn't Loving v Virginia about a black MAN wanting to marry a white WOMAN?

The structure of marriage was in no way harmed by granting them that right that already existed. Gays want to create new rights in the Constitution that do not exist...protection of certain lifestyles that the majority finds repugnant. They want to remove regulation of behaviors and dupe the SCOTUS into granting their lifestyle-cult legal-dominance over actual religions and democracy itself.

LGBT cultists HAVE ALREADY SUED CHRISTIANS. Are you that dense? A church is nothing more, and I mean literally nothing more in a judge's eye than a congregation of individual christians. If the church is open to the public (which they all are), then within a week of the cult of LGBT gaining a federal club to force their dogma on other people legally, there will be a lawsuit filed against a church to accomodate a gay wedding within its halls. If it's open to the general public, they will be sued as a congregated group of individual christians.

Your assurance otherwise is flimsy, transparent and factually a lie. Moreover made worse by the fact that you know it is a lie...

 

[JakeStarkey]

stmike and sil are running around in circles, hooting at the sun.

There is no chance churches of ANY religion will have to marry gays.