Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[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.

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 ?

I tend to place a little more weight on the opinions of medical and health experts than random folks on the internet. I am crazy like that I suppose.

That being said, being a medical expert in no way makes one any less of a quack if what they claim isn't supported by any facts or by the other peers in their field. Being gay isn't a mental illness and the overwhelming majority of health and medical professionals would agree with that statement. Of course they are all in on the vast gay conspiracy or something. lol

 

[Seawytch]

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.

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.

Do you have a point? The way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases is to use protection or to be in a monogamous relationship. Gay or straight. If you have unsafe and unprotected sex, you are at risk for STDs, period.

 

[Syriusly]

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 ?

I go to medical professionals to get medical advise. If they told me I have cancer, even though I didn't want to hear it, yes I would believe I had cancer.

I wouldn't go ask for a second opinion in USMB.

 

[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.

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 ? .

Are you familiar with the syphilis?

The sexually transmitted disease, which if you believe God created everything, that God created.
Before man invented anti-biotics it was the 'AID's' of man's history- killing and driving insane millions of humans.

Sure- if humans only had sex between 1 man and 1 woman(or 1 man with 1 man or 1 woman with 1 woman) their entire lives, and no one ever raped anyone, then STD's would die off.

But the history of humankind is a history of STD's. Just say no campaigns just ensures people will catch STD's.

 

[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.

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?

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..

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

So- no vaccinations?

You think that Polio was natural and that it was natural to let children catch Polio, to die or get paralyzed?

I can continue- but I think I will stop. If there truly is a God, and if he truly did create everything, then he created polio and smallpox and HPV and HIV and Ebola. He created juvenile diabetes and leukemia. They are all 'natural'.

 

[Silhouette]

Sounds like we're getting a little off topic.

The real question is: Will churches be sued to accomodate gay weddings if the Court mandates them federally against the Will of the states?

The answer already is "Yes". Because churches are nothing more than congregations of individual Christians; a place where they congregate. And since the individual components of the whole ALREADY HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY SUED TO ACCOMODATE HOMOSEXUAL WEDDINGS, the word "church" is a mere legal technicality in the face of the LGBT litigious army.

Yes, churches already are being forced to accomodate gay weddings and yes, they will continue to be more and more with time.

 

[mdk]

Sounds like we're getting a little off topic.

The real question is: Will churches be sued to accomodate gay weddings if the Court mandates them federally against the Will of the states?

The answer already is "Yes". Because churches are nothing more than congregations of individual Christians; a place where they congregate. And since the individual components of the whole ALREADY HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY SUED TO ACCOMODATE HOMOSEXUAL WEDDINGS, the word "church" is a mere legal technicality in the face of the LGBT litigious army.

Yes, churches already are being forced to accomodate gay weddings and yes, they will continue to be more and more with time.

No, that actually the isn't the real question. The real question is rather plain and states "should churches be forced to accommodate weddings?" The answer is no. There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry any couple; gay or otherwise, against their wishes. Not one. Since that doesn't fit your narrative you now claim that individual members of the church are actually churches themselves so you can claim churches are in fact being forced to marry gays. Not only is that absurd it is also not supported by any law in this nation. Don't believe me? Next time to you file taxes, claim you do not have to pay any b/c you yourself are a church and see what happens.

 

[Silhouette]

Let's say the baker that was sued to accomodate a gay wedding, went to the same church as a photographer forced to accomodate a gay wedding; and they both went to the same church as the florist and a couple of caterers that were also forced to accomodate gay weddings.

Let's say there's a church in the near future where 30 people have all been sued successfully by gays to accomodate their gay weddings against the individual's faith, and there are only 35 people in the whole church total, including the minister. And like most churches, that one opens its doors wide to any and all of the public to attend...

..Will that mean that a church has been forced to accomodate a homosexual wedding?

 

[mdk]

Let's say the baker that was sued to accomodate a gay wedding, went to the same church as a photographer forced to accomodate a gay wedding; and they both went to the same church as the florist and a couple of caterers that were also forced to accomodate gay weddings.

Let's say there's a church in the near future where 30 people have all been sued successfully by gays to accomodate their gay weddings against the individual's faith, and there are only 35 people in the whole church total, including the minister. And like most churches, that one opens its doors wide to any and all of the public to attend...

..Will that mean that a church has been forced to accomodate a homosexual wedding?

Why the need for a hypothetical? Churches are already being forced to accommodate gay weddings against their wishes according to a legal definition that doesn't exist and no one but you uses.

 

[Desperado]

Should the government force churches to accommodate gay weddings?
Should the Government tell the church who they can baptize?
Should the Government tell the church who can receive Holy Communion?
Should the Government tell the church who can receive the Last Rites?
Of course not, that is why there is a separation of Church and State!

 

[mdk]

Should the government force churches to accommodate gay weddings?
Should the Government tell the church who they can baptize?
Should the Government tell the church who can receive Holy Communion?
Should the Government tell the church who can receive the Last Rites?
Of course not, that is why there is a separation of Church and State!

I couldn't agree more.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

Homosexuals are not a race, please stop attempting to compare the two

 

[Syriusly]

Sounds like we're getting a little off topic.

The real question is: Will churches be sued to accomodate gay weddings if the Court mandates them federally against the Will of the states?

The answer already is "Yes". .

Just demonstrating once again that you are delusional

Churches may be sued- anyone can be sued- but such lawsuits are as invalid as suing a church because they don't allow unicorns in.

Churches are exempt from PA laws, Churches don't have to marry anyone that they don't want to.

And they never will- despite the fearmongering by homophobes.

 

[Syriusly]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

Homosexuals are not a race, please stop attempting to compare the two

Churches can discriminate against anyone that they want to, for any reason that they want to- race, religion, gender, and sexual preference.

 

[Syriusly]

Let's say the baker that was sued to accomodate a gay wedding, went to the same church as a photographer forced to accomodate a gay wedding; and they both went to the same church as the florist and a couple of caterers that were also forced to accomodate gay weddings.

Let's say there's a church in the near future where 30 people have all been sued successfully by gays to accomodate their gay weddings against the individual's faith, and there are only 35 people in the whole church total, including the minister. And like most churches, that one opens its doors wide to any and all of the public to attend...

..Will that mean that a church has been forced to accomodate a homosexual wedding?

According to your scenario, unicorns will suddenly be part of the congregation.....

Churches cannot- and will not- be forced to marry anyone against their wishes.

Catholic Churches will not be forced to marry Baptists.
Baptist Churches will not be forced to marry Jews.
Mormon churches will not be forced to marry homosexuals.

Just not happening.

 

[Seawytch]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

Homosexuals are not a race, please stop attempting to compare the two

Nobody is. The discrimination is compared and comparable.

Churches CAN discriminate based on race if they want to. Societal pressure means most don't want to now.

Same will happen with gays.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

Homosexuals are not a race, please stop attempting to compare the two

Nobody is. The discrimination is compared and comparable.

Churches CAN discriminate based on race if they want to. Societal pressure means most don't want to now.

Same will happen with gays.

Sorry but one is born into race, to date it's never been proven anyone is born homosexual. There is no comparison

 

[Syriusly]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

Homosexuals are not a race, please stop attempting to compare the two

Nobody is. The discrimination is compared and comparable.

Churches CAN discriminate based on race if they want to. Societal pressure means most don't want to now.

Same will happen with gays.

Sorry but one is born into race, to date it's never been proven anyone is born homosexual. There is no comparison

Discrimination is discrimination.

No one is born 'a Christian' but it is still discrimination if someone refuses to hire someone because that person is a Christian.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

Homosexuals are not a race, please stop attempting to compare the two

Nobody is. The discrimination is compared and comparable.

Churches CAN discriminate based on race if they want to. Societal pressure means most don't want to now.

Same will happen with gays.

Sorry but one is born into race, to date it's never been proven anyone is born homosexual. There is no comparison

Discrimination is discrimination.

No one is born 'a Christian' but it is still discrimination if someone refuses to hire someone because that person is a Christian.

How did we get from homosexuals in churches to hiring homosexuals? Please stay on point

 

[Seawytch]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

Homosexuals are not a race, please stop attempting to compare the two

Nobody is. The discrimination is compared and comparable.

Churches CAN discriminate based on race if they want to. Societal pressure means most don't want to now.

Same will happen with gays.

Sorry but one is born into race, to date it's never been proven anyone is born homosexual. There is no comparison

Again, nobody is comparing these two innate traits, just the discrimination suffered by both.

There is an exact comparison to that. Take the test...

Bet You Can t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite