Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?

What? That statement makes no sense.

It wasn't a statement. It was a question....one you evidently can't answer. I'm going to play racquetball...as all good christians do. Pax vobiscum.

Getting back to
Gallup also claims Obama enjoys a 50% approval rating...sorry bu


You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...

Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.

I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage? It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.

Really? You got all that out of "Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?"

How? Seriously. How did you get that he was talking about civil unions with the above question?

Now that might be your pet peeve, but I don't see how it relates to the bolded question.

Now, let's address YOUR separate water fountain idea. Civil marriage is what ya'll straight folks set up. If you don't want it called a civil marriage anymore, you're more than welcome to get the name changed...for everyone. The idea that straights get marriage and gays get civil unions is the definition of separate but equal.

We have partnerships. We have relationships. We have families. We believe they should be afforded the exact same rights, benefits and privileges you and your husband enjoy. A majority of Americans actually agree with me, not you and a vast majority of Americans do "accept it as normal". Where have you been Rip Van Winkle?

Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result

I'm beginning to think that polls may be the most corrupt thing ever invented in this nation, .

Because you disagree with the results of the polls.

Polls can be incorrect- polls can even be misleading depending on how the question is phrased, or even skewed depending upon the audience.

But when the reputable polling groups- Pew- Gallup- come up with similar results, with trends that seem to be consistent (not varying wildly year by year), you have to be pretty ostrichy to conclude that the problem is with the polls, not with your opinion differing with the majority.

 

[Syriusly]

Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result

Over a decade ago (2000/2004 time frame, anti-gay General Election ballot initiatives/referendums passed with (IIRC) 23-76% margins of victory.

By 2008/2009, anti-gay General Election ballot initiatives/referendums squeaked by where a change of only about 2.5% would have changed the outcome.

In 2012 there were 4 marriages initiatives/referendums on the General Election ballot and all won by about 2.5%. And in one of those States it was a reversal of an initiative passed just a few years before in 2009.



Anyone with an ounce of sense sees that is actual election results showing a shift in views on same-sex civil marriage.



>>>>

Yeah, and how did those views come about ? Was it by a person's choice without influence by intimidation or having their arms twisted by powerful people who sold out to a few ?

Anyone twisting your arm? Anyone showing up at your home to intimidate you into supporting marriage equality?

 

[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.

First, I clearly said ancient religious texts were no basis for legal exceptions because they were ancient religious texts. I even quoted it, people can read that, so I don't know why you think you can straw man me on this point.

Perhaps for the same reason you think you can continue to claim your view is "universal," or near-to, when I have posted a poll clearly refuting this. If you averaged all those scores (including some horrendously morally backwards Middle Eastern nations), you'd probably have something like 60% who are prejudiced against homosexuality, 40% who think it's fine. Hardly universal.

I have really no interest in discussing whether Christians are bound by Old Testament laws, and whether it's a "fair" comparison. Enough of them point to "mosaic" passages to justify their position, and hang the Ten Commandments in their churches (and our courthouses) that I am inclined to believe you are the minority view. I also seem to recall Jesus himself disagreeing with you; however, the Bible is so endlessly open to interpretation that there can be no definitive position.

Regardless, it matters not one whit what the Bible says, in the eyes of the law.

That was a lot of effort to just repeat yourself.

You have yet to prove my view on gay marriage unusual, accepting homosexuality as something that exists and will be practiced is entirely different from supporting gay marriage. You have yet to establish that Christians are picking and choosing when it comes to opposing homosexual marriage.

Now you are making some argument that I want to oppose the bible on you and stop your gay marriage when I never said anything about having biblically based law. I only brought up the bible when you used it to call us hypocrites and you have yet to provide proof to that end. You just cited some old kosher laws we Christians aren't bound to. Last I checked, the ten Commandments don't require us to keep kosher.

So as I said before. My view on gay marriage is not unusual. And is nearly universal outside of the view of some in secular western societies. And we Christians aren't hypocrites for opposing it because we don't follow some jewish laws. I reject the legal equality of gay marriages to traditional marriages because they clearly aren't equal in value to society, and I don't support destructive anti social behaviors like homosexuality being encouraged by the state.

 

[Paperman299]

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.

First, I clearly said ancient religious texts were no basis for legal exceptions because they were ancient religious texts. I even quoted it, people can read that, so I don't know why you think you can straw man me on this point.

Perhaps for the same reason you think you can continue to claim your view is "universal," or near-to, when I have posted a poll clearly refuting this. If you averaged all those scores (including some horrendously morally backwards Middle Eastern nations), you'd probably have something like 60% who are prejudiced against homosexuality, 40% who think it's fine. Hardly universal.

I have really no interest in discussing whether Christians are bound by Old Testament laws, and whether it's a "fair" comparison. Enough of them point to "mosaic" passages to justify their position, and hang the Ten Commandments in their churches (and our courthouses) that I am inclined to believe you are the minority view. I also seem to recall Jesus himself disagreeing with you; however, the Bible is so endlessly open to interpretation that there can be no definitive position.

Regardless, it matters not one whit what the Bible says, in the eyes of the law.

That was a lot of effort to just repeat yourself.

You have yet to prove my view on gay marriage unusual, accepting homosexuality as something that exists and will be practiced is entirely different from supporting gay marriage. You have yet to establish that Christians are picking and choosing when it comes to opposing homosexual marriage.

Now you are making some argument that I want to oppose the bible on you and stop your gay marriage when I never said anything about having biblically based law. I only brought up the bible when you used it to call us hypocrites and you have yet to provide proof to that end. You just cited some old kosher laws we Christians aren't bound to. Last I checked, the ten Commandments don't require us to keep kosher.

So as I said before. My view on gay marriage is not unusual. And is nearly universal outside of the view of some in secular western societies. And we Christians aren't hypocrites for opposing it because we don't follow some jewish laws. I reject the legal equality of gay marriages to traditional marriages because they clearly aren't equal in value to society, and I don't support destructive anti social behaviors like homosexuality being encouraged by the state.

People didn't acknowledge homosexuality exists, they said they were okay with it. And how can you continue to demand proof of the changing opinion of equal marriage specifically when the last three pages of this thread have been about nothing but?

If you have confidence in your theological stance, fine. 50 years ago we'd have had this same argument over anti-miscegenation laws. "But it's in the New Testament!" "But the Ten Commandments are still hip because they're not kosher!" These theological minutiae mean nothing to me, but if the Old Testament is so unimportant you may want to inform fellow Christians, who continue to tout its lessons.

If you have any proof besides the Bible that equal marriage is destructive for society, by all means share it with us.

 

[Steinlight]

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.

First, I clearly said ancient religious texts were no basis for legal exceptions because they were ancient religious texts. I even quoted it, people can read that, so I don't know why you think you can straw man me on this point.

Perhaps for the same reason you think you can continue to claim your view is "universal," or near-to, when I have posted a poll clearly refuting this. If you averaged all those scores (including some horrendously morally backwards Middle Eastern nations), you'd probably have something like 60% who are prejudiced against homosexuality, 40% who think it's fine. Hardly universal.

I have really no interest in discussing whether Christians are bound by Old Testament laws, and whether it's a "fair" comparison. Enough of them point to "mosaic" passages to justify their position, and hang the Ten Commandments in their churches (and our courthouses) that I am inclined to believe you are the minority view. I also seem to recall Jesus himself disagreeing with you; however, the Bible is so endlessly open to interpretation that there can be no definitive position.

Regardless, it matters not one whit what the Bible says, in the eyes of the law.

That was a lot of effort to just repeat yourself.

You have yet to prove my view on gay marriage unusual, accepting homosexuality as something that exists and will be practiced is entirely different from supporting gay marriage. You have yet to establish that Christians are picking and choosing when it comes to opposing homosexual marriage.

Now you are making some argument that I want to oppose the bible on you and stop your gay marriage when I never said anything about having biblically based law. I only brought up the bible when you used it to call us hypocrites and you have yet to provide proof to that end. You just cited some old kosher laws we Christians aren't bound to. Last I checked, the ten Commandments don't require us to keep kosher.

So as I said before. My view on gay marriage is not unusual. And is nearly universal outside of the view of some in secular western societies. And we Christians aren't hypocrites for opposing it because we don't follow some jewish laws. I reject the legal equality of gay marriages to traditional marriages because they clearly aren't equal in value to society, and I don't support destructive anti social behaviors like homosexuality being encouraged by the state.

People didn't acknowledge homosexuality exists, they said they were okay with it. And how can you continue to demand proof of the changing opinion of equal marriage specifically when the last three pages of this thread have been about nothing but?

If you have confidence in your theological stance, fine. 50 years ago we'd have had this same argument over anti-miscegenation laws. "But it's in the New Testament!" "But the Ten Commandments are still hip because they're not kosher!" These theological minutiae mean nothing to me, but if the Old Testament is so unimportant you may want to inform fellow Christians, who continue to tout its lessons.

If you have any proof besides the Bible that equal marriage is destructive for society, by all means share it with us.

What do they mean by ok with it? It depends how you word it. Basically, in no way does your question mean these people support gay marriage. Someone can be against sodomy laws, but oppose gay marriage. someone can support sodomy laws, but support lenient enforcement, like most people did until recently. Basically, keep the behavior to the fringes of society and only prosecute those who are overt in their displays of sodomy and keep it from children. I support this. I guess depending on how the question is worded, I "accept it", meaning I don't think people should be arrested for having this mental illness and engaging in their deviant acts as long as it is private. However, I support Russian style laws, where their propaganda is banned and they can't make displays in public. So in conclusion, you haven't shown what is meant by the question, and it can be interpreted several different ways. But none of those way entail support for gay marriage. Thus, you have failed in your contention that my view is unusual, and therefore invalid.

Also, you are misconstruing my position. My position on gay marriage isn't based on public opinion. My contention was with your characterization of my view as unusual, which it isn't. You are the one with the odd view. Outside of your secular western bubble, opposition to gay marriage is nearly universal.

You are just creating strawman after strawman. Look, if you have problems with Jesus not holding us to kosher laws you cite and perfecting the Old Testament law, perhaps you should look to Judaism. However, you cannot call us hypocrites or picking and choosing when we oppose gay marriage but don't follow Kosher laws.

"Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him." And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:14-19)

[L]et no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon . . . These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ . . . Why do you submit to regulations, "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" (referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh. (Col. 2:16-17; 20-23)

Why We Are Not Bound by Everything in the Old Law Catholic Answers

I think the proof that homosexuality as a "lifestyle" is more destructive than heterosexuality is obvious, if you need a link to see this, I don't really see us going anywhere.

 

[Steinlight]

Also, in my country, interracial marriage isn't promoted like it is in your mainstream media, though I don't think many people believe in it as they don't practice it. So don't guilt trip me with that. I don't have the white guilt that Americans do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:

'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'

Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.

There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And this one marriage law is called marriage, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.

 

[Geaux4it]

SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:

'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'

Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.

There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And this one marriage law is called marriage, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.

Ignorance once again by a law school drop-out

Correction.. Recognized by the Federal Government as this is no longer a state issue. The FEDS have taken the reign

-Geaux

 

[SassyIrishLass]

SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:

'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'

Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.

There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And this one marriage law is called marriage, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.

It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.

 

[Geaux4it]

SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:

'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'

Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.

There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And this one marriage law is called marriage, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.

It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.

When in actuality, we all feel sorry for them.... and more so for their parents

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:

'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'

Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.

There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And this one marriage law is called marriage, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.

It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.

Actually it goes back to gays wanting to be treated equally under the law and bigots wanting to prevent that equality.

It's "Tyson Homosexual" in fourth place... Christian website's automated filter changes name of US sprinter

 

[SassyIrishLass]

SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:

'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'

Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.

There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And this one marriage law is called marriage, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.

It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.

Actually it goes back to gays wanting to be treated equally under the law and bigots wanting to prevent that equality.

It's "Tyson Homosexual" in fourth place... Christian website's automated filter changes name of US sprinter

When you can comment without feeling the need to call anyone who dares disagree with you a bigot you might be taken a little more serious.

 

[Seawytch]

SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:

'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'

Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.

There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And this one marriage law is called marriage, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.

It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.

When in actuality, we all feel sorry for them.... and more so for their parents

-Geaux

Not as sorry as we feel for ya'lls gay kids...having to grow up with that kind of hate.

 

[Seawytch]

SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:

'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'

Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.

There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And this one marriage law is called marriage, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.

It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.

Actually it goes back to gays wanting to be treated equally under the law and bigots wanting to prevent that equality.

It's "Tyson Homosexual" in fourth place... Christian website's automated filter changes name of US sprinter

When you can comment without feeling the need to call anyone who dares disagree with you a bigot you might be taken a little more serious.

If you don't say anti gay and bigoted things, people won't call you a bigot.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:

'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'

Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.

There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And this one marriage law is called marriage, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.

It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.

Actually it goes back to gays wanting to be treated equally under the law and bigots wanting to prevent that equality.

It's "Tyson Homosexual" in fourth place... Christian website's automated filter changes name of US sprinter

When you can comment without feeling the need to call anyone who dares disagree with you a bigot you might be taken a little more serious.

If you don't say anti gay and bigoted things, people won't call you a bigot.

I doubt you even know the definition of the word bigot, if you did you'd realize you are one

 

[Seawytch]

SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:

'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'

Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.

There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And this one marriage law is called marriage, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.

It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.

Actually it goes back to gays wanting to be treated equally under the law and bigots wanting to prevent that equality.

It's "Tyson Homosexual" in fourth place... Christian website's automated filter changes name of US sprinter

When you can comment without feeling the need to call anyone who dares disagree with you a bigot you might be taken a little more serious.

If you don't say anti gay and bigoted things, people won't call you a bigot.

I doubt you even know the definition of the word bigot, if you did you'd realize you are one

I suppose you could call me a bigot. I am intolerant of intolerance. It's not your view I'm inotolerant of, you're free to have your opinion. It's when you want to discriminate based on your opinion that I become intolerant.

See, there is no right I want to deny you. You can't say the same can you? You don't believe I should have a civil marriage (I do) and you don't believe my civil marriage should be recognized in all 50 states. I'm sorry it offends you, but that makes you an anti gay bigot.

Unlike being gay, you choose your bigotry and you CAN change.

 

[Syriusly]

SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:

'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'

Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.

There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And this one marriage law is called marriage, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.

It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.

It always goes back to the homophobes think that they know what homosexuals want.

 

[Syriusly]

SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:

'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'

Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.

There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And this one marriage law is called marriage, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.

It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.

Actually it goes back to gays wanting to be treated equally under the law and bigots wanting to prevent that equality.

It's "Tyson Homosexual" in fourth place... Christian website's automated filter changes name of US sprinter

When you can comment without feeling the need to call anyone who dares disagree with you a bigot you might be taken a little more serious.

Stop posting bigoted remarks and then you will stop being called a bigot.

 

[Silhouette]

Stop posting bigoted remarks and then you will stop being called a bigot.

Translation: stop exercizing free speech and we'll stop beating you up. The irony is they claim they are being bullied. Very Orweillian. The Ministry of Anti-Bullying dishes out the most abuse.

 

[Syriusly]

Stop posting bigoted remarks and then you will stop being called a bigot.

Translation: stop exercizing free speech and we'll stop beating you up. The irony is they claim they are being bullied. Very Orweillian. The Ministry of Anti-Bullying dishes out the most abuse.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.

This forum allows you to post all the bigoted, homophobic crap you invent.

It also allows me to criticize you and your bigoted, homophobic crap.

That is free speech.