Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.

The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.

Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.

Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.

If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so. But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.

Laughable, really.

Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all. I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?

Obviously not enough to change the legal definitions. If you do, change them. If you can't, then you're subject to them.

 

[Paperman299]

I never said gay marriage should be prohibited because most other cultures oppose it. You claimed that opposing gay marriage is bizarre or unusual, which it isnt. Historically and today, most of the world doesn't approve of the practice. My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. The

It's funny to me that you're more interested in proving your view is normal than that it is right. As it turns out, you're wrong both times. Most of the world? In fact, except for places like Communist China or the Middle East, the views are much more mixed. The Global Divide on Homosexuality Pew Research Center s Global Attitudes Project

And historically, what we now call homosexual behavior saw much more acceptance across the world, in places like Greece, Rome, and the Americas ("Two-Spirit" people).

But don't worry. If this thread has proven anything, it's that once equal marriage is the law of the land, churches will be allowed to hold on to these prejudices and refuse to marry anyone they want. It won't make it right, and the more time goes by the less normal it will be, but they'll have that right.

 

[Syriusly]

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.

The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit

A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.

Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.

Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.

If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so. But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.

Laughable, really.

Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all. I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?

Who won't allow a vote on what?

If you want to change PA laws- go ahead and work to change them.

Heck the Governor of Arkansas- showing his great respect for the 'voters' just told cities and counties in Arkansas that any regulations that they vote to pass giving LGBT protection will be null and void.

I am sure you will be upset by the Governor of Arkansas working against voters in that case too.......

 

[Syriusly]

I My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. e

In other words, your objection is based upon bigotry.

 

[beagle9]

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..

Not a single church has been sued.

While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?!

I don't miss it- I ignore it- because your premise is false.

A person is not a church
A church is not a person

A person pays taxes
A church doesn't pay taxes.

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.

The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.

Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.

Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.

If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so. But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.

Laughable, really.

Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all. I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?

Then get the constitution changed so we get to popular vote on everything. Taxing the rich...Done! Universal background checks for weapons purchases...Done! No Republican President again ever...Done!

Get on it!

Don't be too sure of yourself, because I wouldn't want you to be terribly disappointed when you finally realize just how the people do feel and look at these issues in their minds. You and your buds best keep plenty of them thar federal judges working it for you, because without them y'all know the party would end very quickly, and it would end in ways that would leave you & your pals speechless afterwards.

I say bring it, because I am confident that the American people would finally show what they really do think on the issues, and this by a vote being allowed and honored afterwards if and when it was taken.

 

[beagle9]

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.

The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.

Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.

Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.

Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.

If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so. But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.

Laughable, really.

Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all. I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?

Who won't allow a vote on what?

If you want to change PA laws- go ahead and work to change them.

Heck the Governor of Arkansas- showing his great respect for the 'voters' just told cities and counties in Arkansas that any regulations that they vote to pass giving LGBT protection will be null and void.

I am sure you will be upset by the Governor of Arkansas working against voters in that case too.......

Could it be that he thinks the process would be corrupt, and therefore cheating would erupt quickly or during the process ? If he is shutting the people down in fear that they may disagree with him, then that is sad. With so much corruption going on these days when it comes to fair, legal and honorable elections, then it's so wonder there are people like him that have become afraid of the democratic process, and afraid of the allowance to let the people speak freely on the issues through their vote.

 

[mdk]

We don't leave matters of civil rights up to a plebiscite. The will of the people is entirely irrelevant when that will is in violation of the Constitution.

There still hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, aganist their wishes. Not one.

 

[Steinlight]

I never said gay marriage should be prohibited because most other cultures oppose it. You claimed that opposing gay marriage is bizarre or unusual, which it isnt. Historically and today, most of the world doesn't approve of the practice. My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. The

It's funny to me that you're more interested in proving your view is normal than that it is right. As it turns out, you're wrong both times. Most of the world? In fact, except for places like Communist China or the Middle East, the views are much more mixed. The Global Divide on Homosexuality Pew Research Center s Global Attitudes Project

And historically, what we now call homosexual behavior saw much more acceptance across the world, in places like Greece, Rome, and the Americas ("Two-Spirit" people).

But don't worry. If this thread has proven anything, it's that once equal marriage is the law of the land, churches will be allowed to hold on to these prejudices and refuse to marry anyone they want. It won't make it right, and the more time goes by the less normal it will be, but they'll have that right.

I think it is right and I articulated why in some part, I view it is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive and I don't think the government should promote it through offering such relations equal recognition. You claimed my view on gay marriage was bizarre, this was the base of your argument, so I responded to that, by saying my view isn't unusual or bizarre but shared by many individuals across cultures. Your survey doesn't confirm otherwise.As I said in the last post, my view on gay marriage isn't based on what percentage in what country agree or disagree with it, so to claim I am more interested in saying my view is normal is false. You insinuated in some part my view is wrong because it is bizarre. And your contention your insinuation, is wrong on that basis.

Gay Marriage was not practiced in Greece or Rome. So not only is the premise of your argument wrong, Your argument is a logical fallacy as an appeal to authority. Because well, if Rome or Greece did it, they didn't, they must be right.

 

[Paperman299]

I never said gay marriage should be prohibited because most other cultures oppose it. You claimed that opposing gay marriage is bizarre or unusual, which it isnt. Historically and today, most of the world doesn't approve of the practice. My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. The

It's funny to me that you're more interested in proving your view is normal than that it is right. As it turns out, you're wrong both times. Most of the world? In fact, except for places like Communist China or the Middle East, the views are much more mixed. The Global Divide on Homosexuality Pew Research Center s Global Attitudes Project

And historically, what we now call homosexual behavior saw much more acceptance across the world, in places like Greece, Rome, and the Americas ("Two-Spirit" people).

But don't worry. If this thread has proven anything, it's that once equal marriage is the law of the land, churches will be allowed to hold on to these prejudices and refuse to marry anyone they want. It won't make it right, and the more time goes by the less normal it will be, but they'll have that right.

I think it is right and I articulated why in some part, I view it is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive and I don't think the government should promote it through offering such relations equal recognition. You claimed my view on gay marriage was bizarre, this was the base of your argument, so I responded to that, by saying my view isn't unusual or bizarre but shared by many individuals across cultures. Your survey doesn't confirm otherwise.As I said in the last post, my view on gay marriage isn't based on what percentage in what country agree or disagree with it, so to claim I am more interested in saying my view is normal is false. You insinuated in some part my view is wrong because it is bizarre. And your contention your insinuation, is wrong on that basis.

Gay Marriage was not practiced in Greece or Rome. So not only is the premise of your argument wrong, Your argument is a logical fallacy as an appeal to authority. Because well, if Rome or Greece did it, they didn't, they must be right.

What a mess of moving the goalposts and strawmen. You didn't say people "share your views," you said your view was basically "universal."

You were wrong.

I said that what we would today describe as homosexual behavior appears very frequently throughout history, not equal marriage.

What you've gotten most wrong, though, was my frickin' point. My characterization of anti-homosexual prejudice as "bizarre" was not the point of my post.

...the bizarre rules of ancient religious texts are in no way sufficient grounds for exceptions from modern laws. And as a spoonful of sugar to help that medicine go down, I would add that there are many rules which have been dropped down through the centuries, and that focusing in on this one in particular is not being Godly but all too human.

They key word there isn't "bizarre," they're "ancient religious texts." And technically, I wasn't just talking about the Bible's anti-homosexual prejudice, I was talking about a lot of its Bronze Age rules which would be crazy to follow today. The reason it's not in American law that adulterers will be stoned, or that we can't eat shellfish, isn't that those things are in the Old Testament instead of the New; it's that something being in the Bible is in no way good cause to make it law. How much less sense it would make, then, that these things should supercede modern law where the two contradict?

 

[Syriusly]

No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.

The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit

Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.

Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.

Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.

If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so. But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.

Laughable, really.

Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all. I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?

Who won't allow a vote on what?

If you want to change PA laws- go ahead and work to change them.

Heck the Governor of Arkansas- showing his great respect for the 'voters' just told cities and counties in Arkansas that any regulations that they vote to pass giving LGBT protection will be null and void.

I am sure you will be upset by the Governor of Arkansas working against voters in that case too.......

Could it be that he thinks the process would be corrupt, and therefore cheating would erupt quickly or during the process ?e.

Hey- that is exactly why we aren't putting the issue of gay marriage on the ballot- we are afraid that the process would be corrupt, and therefore cheating would erupt quickly, by the corrupt homophobes......

See how that works?

Rationalization can make up any conspiracy theory.

 

[Syriusly]

I never said gay marriage should be prohibited because most other cultures oppose it. You claimed that opposing gay marriage is bizarre or unusual, which it isnt. Historically and today, most of the world doesn't approve of the practice. My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. The

It's funny to me that you're more interested in proving your view is normal than that it is right. As it turns out, you're wrong both times. Most of the world? In fact, except for places like Communist China or the Middle East, the views are much more mixed. The Global Divide on Homosexuality Pew Research Center s Global Attitudes Project

And historically, what we now call homosexual behavior saw much more acceptance across the world, in places like Greece, Rome, and the Americas ("Two-Spirit" people).

But don't worry. If this thread has proven anything, it's that once equal marriage is the law of the land, churches will be allowed to hold on to these prejudices and refuse to marry anyone they want. It won't make it right, and the more time goes by the less normal it will be, but they'll have that right.

I I view it is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive and I don't think the government should promote it through offering such relations equal recognition. Yt.

I think bigotry like yours is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive, but I still think you should be allowed to marry.

I am tolerant that way.

 

[Steinlight]

I never said gay marriage should be prohibited because most other cultures oppose it. You claimed that opposing gay marriage is bizarre or unusual, which it isnt. Historically and today, most of the world doesn't approve of the practice. My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. The

It's funny to me that you're more interested in proving your view is normal than that it is right. As it turns out, you're wrong both times. Most of the world? In fact, except for places like Communist China or the Middle East, the views are much more mixed. The Global Divide on Homosexuality Pew Research Center s Global Attitudes Project

And historically, what we now call homosexual behavior saw much more acceptance across the world, in places like Greece, Rome, and the Americas ("Two-Spirit" people).

But don't worry. If this thread has proven anything, it's that once equal marriage is the law of the land, churches will be allowed to hold on to these prejudices and refuse to marry anyone they want. It won't make it right, and the more time goes by the less normal it will be, but they'll have that right.

I think it is right and I articulated why in some part, I view it is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive and I don't think the government should promote it through offering such relations equal recognition. You claimed my view on gay marriage was bizarre, this was the base of your argument, so I responded to that, by saying my view isn't unusual or bizarre but shared by many individuals across cultures. Your survey doesn't confirm otherwise.As I said in the last post, my view on gay marriage isn't based on what percentage in what country agree or disagree with it, so to claim I am more interested in saying my view is normal is false. You insinuated in some part my view is wrong because it is bizarre. And your contention your insinuation, is wrong on that basis.

Gay Marriage was not practiced in Greece or Rome. So not only is the premise of your argument wrong, Your argument is a logical fallacy as an appeal to authority. Because well, if Rome or Greece did it, they didn't, they must be right.

What a mess of moving the goalposts and strawmen. You didn't say people "share your views," you said your view was basically "universal."

You were wrong.

I said that what we would today describe as homosexual behavior appears very frequently throughout history, not equal marriage.

What you've gotten most wrong, though, was my frickin' point. My characterization of anti-homosexual prejudice as "bizarre" was not the point of my post.

...the bizarre rules of ancient religious texts are in no way sufficient grounds for exceptions from modern laws. And as a spoonful of sugar to help that medicine go down, I would add that there are many rules which have been dropped down through the centuries, and that focusing in on this one in particular is not being Godly but all too human.

They key word there isn't "bizarre," they're "ancient religious texts." And technically, I wasn't just talking about the Bible's anti-homosexual prejudice, I was talking about a lot of its Bronze Age rules which would be crazy to follow today. The reason it's not in American law that adulterers will be stoned, or that we can't eat shellfish, isn't that those things are in the Old Testament instead of the New; it's that something being in the Bible is in no way good cause to make it law. How much less sense it would make, then, that these things should supercede modern law where the two contradict?

You are the only one moving the goal posts and creating strawmen. What does "accept homosexuality" entail? And it is an entirely different question than marriage. So my point stands. Your contention was my view on gay marriage was bizarre and thus wrong, I responded by saying my view on gay marriage is pretty universal outside the secular west, across cultures historically and in modern times. You have yet to prove my view on gay marriage is bizarre, meaning unusual or odd, thus your argument on those grounds is flawed. Not only is the premise flawed, the argument is a logical fallacy as it suggests a view is right based on majority consensus.

I never stated homosexual behavior is a modern manifestation, so I don't understand what exactly you are talking about here. So what exactly is your point here and how does homosexuality in the ancient world relate to gay marriage now? None of the societies you cited allowed gay marriage, so what exactly is your point here?

Just because a code of morality is old or comes from ancient times doesn't make it wrong. You even admit this when you cite Rome and ancient Greece, though incorrectly. But you appeal to ancients. In many way the ancients were wiser than us moderns.

You implied we as Christians were hypocritical and picking and choosing which laws we follow. You claimed we ignore dietary laws, but follow the passages which tell us homosexuality is a sin. Your assertion we are hypocrites is simply incorrect, as we aren't bound by those mosaic laws as Christians. So your basis we are picking or choosing and our opposition to homosexuality is arbitrary is false.

I never said the law should be based on the Bible. I joined the conversation when you were discussing whether there was any clear condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament and I provided scripture to that end. What I said is that the government shouldn't promote a homosexuality, which is a mental illness, and a personally and socially destructive lifestyle as equal to the union of a man in the wife who come together to have children and build a family.

 

[beagle9]

I My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. e

In other words, your objection is based upon bigotry.

I think bigotry like yours is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive, but I still think you should be allowed to marry.

I am tolerant that way.

Now let me see - Hmm, would you call a doctor a bigot, or any of the other labels people love to give each other in life ? Would you use such a name on a doctor if he were to be treating say a person's sexual disease for instance in life, in which he or she may have gotten by doing things that are not wise to do in life ?

Now the doctor would want to explain to the patient (i.e. get into his or her business on the matter), and to tell them how it best not to engage in certain activities in which they might have engaged in, but why ? It's because it may have led to or caused the disease in which he or she might have gotten out of it all right ? Now there are diseases in which are now being treated by doctors who know best about them as according to the millions that are treated by such doctors across this great united states and beyond, and thank God for that because the world needs them, but are they being listened to these days, and are they just bigots themselves ?.

There are many sicknesses today that usually causes the investigation of an illness in order to find out what most likely causes these diseases that we are all seeing in today's societies now in result of, and Doctors are on the front lines of these fights, but have they been silenced about the causes and the effects over time ?

I mean there are people out there who do crazy things in life right, but how dare anyone try and steer them in a better light or direction in life afterwards. People give advice all the time in order to help others avoid dire consequences all due their actions taken in life, and this is just as a Doctor would do by offering such advice to his patients just as well, but hey you don't ever hear of a doctor being called a bigot or other such grand titles when trying to help others or to treat them and/or to inform them in life about the things that hurt human beings now do you ?

 

[Seawytch]

I My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. e

In other words, your objection is based upon bigotry.

I think bigotry like yours is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive, but I still think you should be allowed to marry.

I am tolerant that way.

Now let me see - Hmm, would you call a doctor a bigot, or any of the other labels people love to give each other in life ? Would you use such a name on a doctor if he were to be treating say a person's sexual disease for instance in life, in which he or she may have gotten by doing things that are not wise to do in life ?

Now the doctor would want to explain to the patient (i.e. get into his or her business on the matter), and to tell them how it best not to engage in certain activities in which they might have engaged in, but why ? It's because it may have led to or caused the disease in which he or she might have gotten out of it all right ? Now there are diseases in which are now being treated by doctors who know best about them as according to the millions that are treated by such doctors across this great united states and beyond, and thank God for that because the world needs them, but are they being listened to these days, and are they just bigots themselves ?.

You know you can apply the above to a heterosexual, right? Anyone who engages in unsafe sex is at risk for sexually transmitted diseases. THAT is what a doctor will say to a patient.

Were you aware that lesbians are in the lowest risk category for sexually transmitted diseases?

 

[Syriusly]

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..

Not a single church has been sued.

While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?!

I don't miss it- I ignore it- because your premise is false.

A person is not a church
A church is not a person

A person pays taxes
A church doesn't pay taxes.

No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.

The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit

Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.

Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.

Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.

If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so. But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.

Laughable, really.

Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all. I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?

Then get the constitution changed so we get to popular vote on everything. Taxing the rich...Done! Universal background checks for weapons purchases...Done! No Republican President again ever...Done!

Get on it!

Don't be too sure of yourself, because I wouldn't want you to be terribly disappointed when you finally realize just how the people do feel and look at these issues in their minds. You and your buds best keep plenty of them thar federal judges working it for you, because without them y'all know the party would end very quickly, and it would end in ways that would leave you & your pals speechless afterwards.

I say bring it, because I am confident that the American people would finally show what they really do think on the issues, and this by a vote being allowed and honored afterwards if and when it was taken.

I My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. e

In other words, your objection is based upon bigotry.

I think bigotry like yours is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive, but I still think you should be allowed to marry.

I am tolerant that way.

Now let me see - Hmm, would you call a doctor a bigot, or any of the other labels people love to give each other in life ?

I would call a doctor a bigot if that doctor is a bigot.

Meanwhile, I think those that are not doctors- but insist on declaring that they know that homosexuality is a mental illness, even though the medical community says it is not- are indeed bigots.

 

[Silhouette]

I would call a doctor a bigot if that doctor is a bigot.
Meanwhile, I think those that are not doctors- but insist on declaring that they know that homosexuality is a mental illness, even though the medical community says it is not- are indeed bigots.

The medical community relies nearly 100% on the APA's public position for the psychological components of medicine. This is highly problematic when a cult takes over the APA. Watch the full 8 minutes of the video on this OP if you really care about this topic and where "the truth" on these subjects is coming from.. It's chilling and this is not made up folks. Follow the links and see for yourselves: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Syriusly]

I would call a doctor a bigot if that doctor is a bigot.
Meanwhile, I think those that are not doctors- but insist on declaring that they know that homosexuality is a mental illness, even though the medical community says it is not- are indeed bigots.

The medical community relies

The medical community consists of actual experts on medicine and health, as opposed to anonymous bigots on the internet.

 

[mdk]

Hmm...I wonder whom has more creditability when deciding if homosexuality is a mental illness or not? Trained medical professionals backed by research or random internet bigots with an axe to grind? Such a tough a choice here but I think I am going to have to side with the people whom are experts in their respective fields over internet randoms.

 

[beagle9]

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..

Not a single church has been sued.

While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?!

I don't miss it- I ignore it- because your premise is false.

A person is not a church
A church is not a person

A person pays taxes
A church doesn't pay taxes.

The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit
Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.

Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.

If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so. But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.

Laughable, really.

Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all. I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?

Then get the constitution changed so we get to popular vote on everything. Taxing the rich...Done! Universal background checks for weapons purchases...Done! No Republican President again ever...Done!

Get on it!

Don't be too sure of yourself, because I wouldn't want you to be terribly disappointed when you finally realize just how the people do feel and look at these issues in their minds. You and your buds best keep plenty of them thar federal judges working it for you, because without them y'all know the party would end very quickly, and it would end in ways that would leave you & your pals speechless afterwards.

I say bring it, because I am confident that the American people would finally show what they really do think on the issues, and this by a vote being allowed and honored afterwards if and when it was taken.

I My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. e

In other words, your objection is based upon bigotry.

I think bigotry like yours is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive, but I still think you should be allowed to marry.

I am tolerant that way.

Now let me see - Hmm, would you call a doctor a bigot, or any of the other labels people love to give each other in life ?

I would call a doctor a bigot if that doctor is a bigot.

Meanwhile, I think those that are not doctors- but insist on declaring that they know that homosexuality is a mental illness, even though the medical community says it is not- are indeed bigots.

I My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. e

In other words, your objection is based upon bigotry.

I think bigotry like yours is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive, but I still think you should be allowed to marry.

I am tolerant that way.

Now let me see - Hmm, would you call a doctor a bigot, or any of the other labels people love to give each other in life ? Would you use such a name on a doctor if he were to be treating say a person's sexual disease for instance in life, in which he or she may have gotten by doing things that are not wise to do in life ?

Now the doctor would want to explain to the patient (i.e. get into his or her business on the matter), and to tell them how it best not to engage in certain activities in which they might have engaged in, but why ? It's because it may have led to or caused the disease in which he or she might have gotten out of it all right ? Now there are diseases in which are now being treated by doctors who know best about them as according to the millions that are treated by such doctors across this great united states and beyond, and thank God for that because the world needs them, but are they being listened to these days, and are they just bigots themselves ?.

You know you can apply the above to a heterosexual, right? Anyone who engages in unsafe sex is at risk for sexually transmitted diseases. THAT is what a doctor will say to a patient.

Were you aware that lesbians are in the lowest risk category for sexually transmitted diseases?

Of course you can, but think about it this way. Do you think it as normal to even have to use a term like SAFE SEX when one decides to have sex with another in life ? I mean God designed the man and the woman to have sex with each other by that very design right, and if they do what God had intended for them to do, in which is to keep it normal and clean between them naturally, then without any help at all isn't it considered as the safest sex when doing it just as God had planned it and designed it all to be ? The idea that people have to shield themselves when having sex is an UN-natural thing, so what are people doing wrong that they have to protect themselves in an UN-natural way ? Also just because someone can take medicine to keep a sickness at bay, doesn't mean that such a thing as that is a natural thing either. The natural thing in life is to be medicine free, and living as God had designed us all to live without all the modern crutches that people are using and promoting in today's society to get by now. However if one does get sick in life, then think God for doctors and medicine in hopes to correct the situation.

 

[beagle9]

Hmm...I wonder whom has more creditability when deciding if homosexuality is a mental illness or not? Trained medical professionals backed by research or random internet bigots with an axe to grind? Such a tough a choice here but I think I am going to have to side with the people whom are experts in their respective fields over internet randoms.

You wouldn't side with medical professionals either would you, otherwise if your mind was made up, and they told you something that you didn't want to hear ?