Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[beagle9]

What about when Christians are being attacked, where are you then? No where to be found huh.

What Christians are being attacked in the U.S.?

In regards to this thread, Christians are expected to follow the same law as everyone else.

That is not an attack.

Phil Robertson comes to mind quickly, and the lady who was a former Miss. America contestant, and the Chic Filet CEO. Your kidding me that you don't know these things right ?

Well what I've heard is when the question is asked to certain people if they are OK with gay marriage, and they don't answer correctly according to the one asking, then they are attacked. It was hoped for that Chic Filet would be boycotted, and that Phil of Duck Dynasty would be run off the air of A&E (or) that the crown would be taken from the former Miss America contestant Carrie Prejean (Miss California), if she would have won (or) to be disqualified by Trump because of her stance when asked.

Okay- if you want to go there- you are then admitting that Christians have been attacking Gays?

When Christians demand boycotts of business's that treat Gays equally? Boycotts for hiring a lesbian spokesperson?

IF you want to claim that those are examples of Christians being attacked- then in the same logic- there are examples of Christians attacking homosexuals.

Not aware of the attacks you speak of, and how can you be sure they were Christians who were allegedly attacking them ? Now a protest of an issue is different from an attack, so just be sure that you are clear on that difference........ Can you be more specific maybe ? Now keep it current as we don't want you to go back to the beginning of time in order to make your points.

You say that Christians demanded boycotts of businesses that were treating gay's equally ?

Yes- that is exactly what I am saying.

Southern Baptists calling for a boycott of Disney for being too gay friendly.
Million Mom's - a Christian right wing organization calling for a boycott of well pretty much everybody- including the cancelation of a TV show for daring to have a gay character,
and trying to be Ellen Degeneres fired for daring to be a lesbian spokesperson for JC Penney

The Catholic League has a number of boycotts going
Bill Donohue Of Catholic League Urges Beer Boycott Of Guinness, Heineken, And Sam Adams For Supporting Gay Equality

The Christian right wing American Family Association boycott of Home Depot for being too gay friendly


SHARP: We’re glad to report that we are suspending the boycott of The Home Depot. After monitoring the company for several months,we’re satisfied that the company has withdrawn its major financial contributions to gay activist groups and to their activities. […]

We certainly do expect The Home Depot to deny that they have turned back their contributions to gay activist groups, but AFA has monitored the company – and actions speak louder than words.
American Family Association Ends Home Depot Boycott With Nothing To Show For It ThinkProgress

A Christian pastor is asking customers to boycott Starbucks due to the company's support of a bill to legalize gay marriage in Washington state, King 5 News reports.

"Christians are upset with Starbucks for turning against God...Starbucks can follow Satan if they want to," Steven Andrew, and evangelical pastor and president of the USA Christian Ministries in California, said in a statement. "However, pastors are to help Christians. Are you on the Lord's side? Will you help the USA be blessed by God?"

The Christian "Family Research Council"
On Thursday, Tony Perkins, founder of Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., called upon listeners to his daily radio commentary to join the organization in its boycott against the company.


“At Betty Crocker, the only thing they’re mixing up is their priorities,” he stated. “If you ask conservatives, Betty Crocker’s latest promotion is a recipe for disaster.”


Perkins then pointed to a website providing additional information on the boycott against Betty Crocker and its parent company General Mills, which includes a letter that supporters can sign to express their disappointment.


“I never thought that by eating Cheerios for breakfast I would be supporting gay marriage. Your decision to pander to same-sex marriage activists has forced me to choose between your food products and my conscience,” it reads. “As long as food is produced by other companies my conscience is going to win out over the desire for another bowl of Lucky Charms.”


How many more examples would you like?

OK so basically their protesting these companies, because they are empowering the gay culture and their activist/activities in which are doing just what they had expected them to do, and that is to attack Christians if they don't get their way about taking their culture more into the mainstream. I wonder who keeps striking first? The Christians aren't changing or trying to change society, so it is that they are the ones who are on the defence instead of the offence.

So let me understand this:
When homosexuals call for boycotts of a business like Chik Fil E for perceiving that the business is 'anti-gay' that is an attack on Christians.

But when Christians call for boycotts of a business like Starbucks, or JC Penney, for being pro-gay, that is not an attack by Christians on homosexuals.......

That is quite the rational for a double standard.

Beagle- if its an attack when one group does the action- it is an attack if another group does the exact same action.

But of course in reality- neither is an attack- you are just whiny when it happens to business owners who want to be able to discriminate against homosexuals.

Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? Like I say, in order to bring such a thing out into every facet and/or area of life, then it should be expected to find plenty of resistance or a differing of opinion upon how marriage is supposed to be from a world that which some or many people do feel is being encroached upon now. Get used to it again I guess (the resistance to change on some things), because such a lifestyle that is seeking marriage in order to be more legit if that is the case, may not be accepted by everyone in their spheres of influence or within their ideologies or cultures in which they keep within the nation, and I'm guessing you know that by now.

 

[Silhouette]

Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? Like I say, in order to bring such a thing out into every facet and/or area of life, then it should be expected to find plenty of resistance or a differing of opinion upon how marriage is supposed to be from a world that which some or many people do feel is being encroached upon now. Get used to it again I guess (the resistance to change on some things), because such a lifestyle that is seeking marriage in order to be more legit if that is the case, may not be accepted by everyone in their spheres of influence or within their ideologies or cultures in which they keep within the nation, and I'm guessing you know that by now.

Good points beagle. And judging by the poll at the top of the page, there is quite a lot of resistance in the real world to the idea of gay lifestyle marriage as a new lab experiment (to the kids having to be raised minus one of the genders in that artificial setting) replacing commonly held social values. 82% of the public are resistant to this change.

 

[mdk]

Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? Like I say, in order to bring such a thing out into every facet and/or area of life, then it should be expected to find plenty of resistance or a differing of opinion upon how marriage is supposed to be from a world that which some or many people do feel is being encroached upon now. Get used to it again I guess (the resistance to change on some things), because such a lifestyle that is seeking marriage in order to be more legit if that is the case, may not be accepted by everyone in their spheres of influence or within their ideologies or cultures in which they keep within the nation, and I'm guessing you know that by now.

Good points beagle. And judging by the poll at the top of the page, there is quite a lot of resistance in the real world to the idea of gay lifestyle marriage as a new lab experiment (to the kids having to be raised minus one of the genders in that artificial setting) replacing commonly held social values. 82% of the public are resistant to this change.

The poll at the top have this page literally says nothing about children being raised by gay parents. 82% of participants in this thread's poll do not believe churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. The vast and overwhelming of people that support gay marriage in this thread also believe the church shouldn't be forced to marry any couple. This of course is the part where you'll foolishly gas on about how individual members of the church are in fact churches themselves. An argument with no legal backing whatsoever.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When homosexuals call for boycotts of a business like Chik Fil E ...

You're speaking of the would-be "boycott" which resulted in among the highest volume of sales ever recorded by a fast food company, in the history of fast food companies?
)

I was speaking of idiotic attempted boycotts both by self proclaimed Christians against companies who dared treat homosexuals equally and attempted boycotts by LGBT groups against companies who they believe didn't treat homosexuals equally.

I understand... But ya did so through the recognition of the ANSA Cult (evil) declaring a "boycott" of Chick fil A, which resulted in the highest volume of sales ever recorded by a fast food company, in the history of fast food companies.

The point being that the presumed popularity of your cult and your cult's advocacy, is not just demonstrably FALSE, but hysterically false.

 

[Syriusly]

When homosexuals call for boycotts of a business like Chik Fil E ...

You're speaking of the would-be "boycott" which resulted in among the highest volume of sales ever recorded by a fast food company, in the history of fast food companies?
)

I was speaking of idiotic attempted boycotts both by self proclaimed Christians against companies who dared treat homosexuals equally and attempted boycotts by LGBT groups against companies who they believe didn't treat homosexuals equally.

I understand...

You understand nothing but the voices in your head.

You are a sexual deviant.

 

[Skylar]

Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? Like I say, in order to bring such a thing out into every facet and/or area of life, then it should be expected to find plenty of resistance or a differing of opinion upon how marriage is supposed to be from a world that which some or many people do feel is being encroached upon now. Get used to it again I guess (the resistance to change on some things), because such a lifestyle that is seeking marriage in order to be more legit if that is the case, may not be accepted by everyone in their spheres of influence or within their ideologies or cultures in which they keep within the nation, and I'm guessing you know that by now.

Good points beagle. And judging by the poll at the top of the page, there is quite a lot of resistance in the real world to the idea of gay lifestyle marriage as a new lab experiment (to the kids having to be raised minus one of the genders in that artificial setting) replacing commonly held social values. 82% of the public are resistant to this change.

The poll at the top have this page literally says nothing about children being raised by gay parents. 82% of participants in this thread's poll do not believe churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. The vast and overwhelming of people that support gay marriage in this thread also believe the church shouldn't be forced to marry any couple. This of course is the part where you'll foolishly gas on about how individual members of the church are in fact churches themselves. An argument with no legal backing whatsoever.

Is Silo reimagning the poll again?

This is what? the 4th or 5th 'retcon' of the poll......when anyone can just scroll to the top of the page and see that Silo is having another hallucinatory fit.

I'm telling you, this isn't for us. This is a self soothing excercise that Silo is using for himself.

 

[Skylar]

What Christians are being attacked in the U.S.?

In regards to this thread, Christians are expected to follow the same law as everyone else.

That is not an attack.

Phil Robertson comes to mind quickly, and the lady who was a former Miss. America contestant, and the Chic Filet CEO. Your kidding me that you don't know these things right ?

Okay- if you want to go there- you are then admitting that Christians have been attacking Gays?

When Christians demand boycotts of business's that treat Gays equally? Boycotts for hiring a lesbian spokesperson?

IF you want to claim that those are examples of Christians being attacked- then in the same logic- there are examples of Christians attacking homosexuals.

Not aware of the attacks you speak of, and how can you be sure they were Christians who were allegedly attacking them ? Now a protest of an issue is different from an attack, so just be sure that you are clear on that difference........ Can you be more specific maybe ? Now keep it current as we don't want you to go back to the beginning of time in order to make your points.

You say that Christians demanded boycotts of businesses that were treating gay's equally ?

Yes- that is exactly what I am saying.

Southern Baptists calling for a boycott of Disney for being too gay friendly.
Million Mom's - a Christian right wing organization calling for a boycott of well pretty much everybody- including the cancelation of a TV show for daring to have a gay character,
and trying to be Ellen Degeneres fired for daring to be a lesbian spokesperson for JC Penney

The Catholic League has a number of boycotts going
Bill Donohue Of Catholic League Urges Beer Boycott Of Guinness, Heineken, And Sam Adams For Supporting Gay Equality

The Christian right wing American Family Association boycott of Home Depot for being too gay friendly


SHARP: We’re glad to report that we are suspending the boycott of The Home Depot. After monitoring the company for several months,we’re satisfied that the company has withdrawn its major financial contributions to gay activist groups and to their activities. […]

We certainly do expect The Home Depot to deny that they have turned back their contributions to gay activist groups, but AFA has monitored the company – and actions speak louder than words.
American Family Association Ends Home Depot Boycott With Nothing To Show For It ThinkProgress

A Christian pastor is asking customers to boycott Starbucks due to the company's support of a bill to legalize gay marriage in Washington state, King 5 News reports.

"Christians are upset with Starbucks for turning against God...Starbucks can follow Satan if they want to," Steven Andrew, and evangelical pastor and president of the USA Christian Ministries in California, said in a statement. "However, pastors are to help Christians. Are you on the Lord's side? Will you help the USA be blessed by God?"

The Christian "Family Research Council"
On Thursday, Tony Perkins, founder of Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., called upon listeners to his daily radio commentary to join the organization in its boycott against the company.


“At Betty Crocker, the only thing they’re mixing up is their priorities,” he stated. “If you ask conservatives, Betty Crocker’s latest promotion is a recipe for disaster.”


Perkins then pointed to a website providing additional information on the boycott against Betty Crocker and its parent company General Mills, which includes a letter that supporters can sign to express their disappointment.


“I never thought that by eating Cheerios for breakfast I would be supporting gay marriage. Your decision to pander to same-sex marriage activists has forced me to choose between your food products and my conscience,” it reads. “As long as food is produced by other companies my conscience is going to win out over the desire for another bowl of Lucky Charms.”


How many more examples would you like?

OK so basically their protesting these companies, because they are empowering the gay culture and their activist/activities in which are doing just what they had expected them to do, and that is to attack Christians if they don't get their way about taking their culture more into the mainstream. I wonder who keeps striking first? The Christians aren't changing or trying to change society, so it is that they are the ones who are on the defence instead of the offence.

So let me understand this:
When homosexuals call for boycotts of a business like Chik Fil E for perceiving that the business is 'anti-gay' that is an attack on Christians.

But when Christians call for boycotts of a business like Starbucks, or JC Penney, for being pro-gay, that is not an attack by Christians on homosexuals.......

That is quite the rational for a double standard.

Beagle- if its an attack when one group does the action- it is an attack if another group does the exact same action.

But of course in reality- neither is an attack- you are just whiny when it happens to business owners who want to be able to discriminate against homosexuals.

Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way?

Holding a Christian to the same laws that apply to everyone else isn't 'attacking them'.

Ending your entire line of reasoning.

 

[Syriusly]

What Christians are being attacked in the U.S.?

In regards to this thread, Christians are expected to follow the same law as everyone else.

That is not an attack.

Phil Robertson comes to mind quickly, and the lady who was a former Miss. America contestant, and the Chic Filet CEO. Your kidding me that you don't know these things right ?

Okay- if you want to go there- you are then admitting that Christians have been attacking Gays?

When Christians demand boycotts of business's that treat Gays equally? Boycotts for hiring a lesbian spokesperson?

IF you want to claim that those are examples of Christians being attacked- then in the same logic- there are examples of Christians attacking homosexuals.

Not aware of the attacks you speak of, and how can you be sure they were Christians who were allegedly attacking them ? Now a protest of an issue is different from an attack, so just be sure that you are clear on that difference........ Can you be more specific maybe ? Now keep it current as we don't want you to go back to the beginning of time in order to make your points.

You say that Christians demanded boycotts of businesses that were treating gay's equally ?

Yes- that is exactly what I am saying.

Southern Baptists calling for a boycott of Disney for being too gay friendly.
Million Mom's - a Christian right wing organization calling for a boycott of well pretty much everybody- including the cancelation of a TV show for daring to have a gay character,
and trying to be Ellen Degeneres fired for daring to be a lesbian spokesperson for JC Penney

The Catholic League has a number of boycotts going
Bill Donohue Of Catholic League Urges Beer Boycott Of Guinness, Heineken, And Sam Adams For Supporting Gay Equality

The Christian right wing American Family Association boycott of Home Depot for being too gay friendly


SHARP: We’re glad to report that we are suspending the boycott of The Home Depot. After monitoring the company for several months,we’re satisfied that the company has withdrawn its major financial contributions to gay activist groups and to their activities. […]

We certainly do expect The Home Depot to deny that they have turned back their contributions to gay activist groups, but AFA has monitored the company – and actions speak louder than words.
American Family Association Ends Home Depot Boycott With Nothing To Show For It ThinkProgress

A Christian pastor is asking customers to boycott Starbucks due to the company's support of a bill to legalize gay marriage in Washington state, King 5 News reports.

"Christians are upset with Starbucks for turning against God...Starbucks can follow Satan if they want to," Steven Andrew, and evangelical pastor and president of the USA Christian Ministries in California, said in a statement. "However, pastors are to help Christians. Are you on the Lord's side? Will you help the USA be blessed by God?"

The Christian "Family Research Council"
On Thursday, Tony Perkins, founder of Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., called upon listeners to his daily radio commentary to join the organization in its boycott against the company.


“At Betty Crocker, the only thing they’re mixing up is their priorities,” he stated. “If you ask conservatives, Betty Crocker’s latest promotion is a recipe for disaster.”


Perkins then pointed to a website providing additional information on the boycott against Betty Crocker and its parent company General Mills, which includes a letter that supporters can sign to express their disappointment.


“I never thought that by eating Cheerios for breakfast I would be supporting gay marriage. Your decision to pander to same-sex marriage activists has forced me to choose between your food products and my conscience,” it reads. “As long as food is produced by other companies my conscience is going to win out over the desire for another bowl of Lucky Charms.”


How many more examples would you like?

OK so basically their protesting these companies, because they are empowering the gay culture and their activist/activities in which are doing just what they had expected them to do, and that is to attack Christians if they don't get their way about taking their culture more into the mainstream. I wonder who keeps striking first? The Christians aren't changing or trying to change society, so it is that they are the ones who are on the defence instead of the offence.

So let me understand this:
When homosexuals call for boycotts of a business like Chik Fil E for perceiving that the business is 'anti-gay' that is an attack on Christians.

But when Christians call for boycotts of a business like Starbucks, or JC Penney, for being pro-gay, that is not an attack by Christians on homosexuals.......

That is quite the rational for a double standard.

Beagle- if its an attack when one group does the action- it is an attack if another group does the exact same action.

But of course in reality- neither is an attack- you are just whiny when it happens to business owners who want to be able to discriminate against homosexuals.

Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? .

'Christians are not attacking unless provoked'.

How is Ellen Degeneres as a spokesperson for JC Penny 'provoking' anything?

Christians attempted to get her fired because she is a homosexual.

Christians have been telling homosexuals that they are evil for centuries- what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way?

You whine about 'Christians' being attacked, but 'Christians' have no compunction against attacking homosexuals for being who they are- like here:

Instruction on Controversial Questions Homosexuality
In addition, most persons with a homosexual orientation do not sincerely and fully accept Church teaching that the homosexual orientation is evil and that homosexual acts are always gravely immoral. Anyone who does not accept this teaching of the Church, or who obstinately doubts this teaching, is in a state of heresy. And heretics are automatically excommunicated under Canon Law.

Now imagine that was what you were hearing from homosexuals all the time- that Christianity is evil, and that practicing Christianity is gravely immoral.

Christians attack homosexuals all the time- at least in the sense you feel 'attacked'.

Just that you cloak it all in 'faith' and are offended when the same tactics are used against Christians.

No more double standard hypocrisy- if it is an attack when homosexuals call for a boycott of a business for what they have said or done- it is an attack when Christians call for a boycott of a business for what they have said or done.

If you can't handle that truth- then you are can't handle the truth.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? Like I say, in order to bring such a thing out into every facet and/or area of life, then it should be expected to find plenty of resistance or a differing of opinion upon how marriage is supposed to be from a world that which some or many people do feel is being encroached upon now. Get used to it again I guess (the resistance to change on some things), because such a lifestyle that is seeking marriage in order to be more legit if that is the case, may not be accepted by everyone in their spheres of influence or within their ideologies or cultures in which they keep within the nation, and I'm guessing you know that by now.

Good points beagle. And judging by the poll at the top of the page,e.

The poll has nothing to do with what the public thinks about 'gay marriage'

Never has- all of us agree no church should or will be forced to marry anyone it doesn't want to marry.

 

[mdk]

Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? Like I say, in order to bring such a thing out into every facet and/or area of life, then it should be expected to find plenty of resistance or a differing of opinion upon how marriage is supposed to be from a world that which some or many people do feel is being encroached upon now. Get used to it again I guess (the resistance to change on some things), because such a lifestyle that is seeking marriage in order to be more legit if that is the case, may not be accepted by everyone in their spheres of influence or within their ideologies or cultures in which they keep within the nation, and I'm guessing you know that by now.

Good points beagle. And judging by the poll at the top of the page, there is quite a lot of resistance in the real world to the idea of gay lifestyle marriage as a new lab experiment (to the kids having to be raised minus one of the genders in that artificial setting) replacing commonly held social values. 82% of the public are resistant to this change.

The poll at the top have this page literally says nothing about children being raised by gay parents. 82% of participants in this thread's poll do not believe churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. The vast and overwhelming of people that support gay marriage in this thread also believe the church shouldn't be forced to marry any couple. This of course is the part where you'll foolishly gas on about how individual members of the church are in fact churches themselves. An argument with no legal backing whatsoever.

Is Silo reimagning the poll again?

This is what? the 4th or 5th 'retcon' of the poll......when anyone can just scroll to the top of the page and see that Silo is having another hallucinatory fit.

I'm telling you, this isn't for us. This is a self soothing excercise that Silo is using for himself.

Months ago Silo was claiming that this poll means 82% of its respondents actually are opposed to gay marriage. Never mind the fact that many of the very same posters in this thread have stated on numerous occasions churches should not be forced to marry any couple despite the fact that we support gay marriage. Now it means 82% of the people don't support gays having children. Tomorrow it will mean the respondents supports wolves marrying if they have children. lol.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? Like I say, in order to bring such a thing out into every facet and/or area of life, then it should be expected to find plenty of resistance or a differing of opinion upon how marriage is supposed to be from a world that which some or many people do feel is being encroached upon now. Get used to it again I guess (the resistance to change on some things), because such a lifestyle that is seeking marriage in order to be more legit if that is the case, may not be accepted by everyone in their spheres of influence or within their ideologies or cultures in which they keep within the nation, and I'm guessing you know that by now.

Good points beagle. And judging by the poll at the top of the page, there is quite a lot of resistance in the real world to the idea of gay lifestyle marriage as a new lab experiment (to the kids having to be raised minus one of the genders in that artificial setting) replacing commonly held social values. 82% of the public are resistant to this change.

The poll at the top have this page literally says nothing about children being raised by gay parents. 82% of participants in this thread's poll do not believe churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. The vast and overwhelming of people that support gay marriage in this thread also believe the church shouldn't be forced to marry any couple. This of course is the part where you'll foolishly gas on about how individual members of the church are in fact churches themselves. An argument with no legal backing whatsoever.

Is Silo reimagning the poll again?

This is what? the 4th or 5th 'retcon' of the poll......when anyone can just scroll to the top of the page and see that Silo is having another hallucinatory fit.

I'm telling you, this isn't for us. This is a self soothing excercise that Silo is using for himself.

Months ago Silo was claiming that this poll means 82% of its respondents actually are opposed to gay marriage. Never mind the fact that many of the very same posters in this thread have stated on numerous occasions churches should not be forced to marry any couple despite the fact that we support gay marriage. Now it means 82% of the people don't support gays having children. Tomorrow it will mean the respondents supports wolves marrying if they have children. lol.

As long as they are heterosexual wolves....well Silhouette will be fine with them marrying and having children....

 

[Skylar]

Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? Like I say, in order to bring such a thing out into every facet and/or area of life, then it should be expected to find plenty of resistance or a differing of opinion upon how marriage is supposed to be from a world that which some or many people do feel is being encroached upon now. Get used to it again I guess (the resistance to change on some things), because such a lifestyle that is seeking marriage in order to be more legit if that is the case, may not be accepted by everyone in their spheres of influence or within their ideologies or cultures in which they keep within the nation, and I'm guessing you know that by now.

Good points beagle. And judging by the poll at the top of the page, there is quite a lot of resistance in the real world to the idea of gay lifestyle marriage as a new lab experiment (to the kids having to be raised minus one of the genders in that artificial setting) replacing commonly held social values. 82% of the public are resistant to this change.

The poll at the top have this page literally says nothing about children being raised by gay parents. 82% of participants in this thread's poll do not believe churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. The vast and overwhelming of people that support gay marriage in this thread also believe the church shouldn't be forced to marry any couple. This of course is the part where you'll foolishly gas on about how individual members of the church are in fact churches themselves. An argument with no legal backing whatsoever.

Is Silo reimagning the poll again?

This is what? the 4th or 5th 'retcon' of the poll......when anyone can just scroll to the top of the page and see that Silo is having another hallucinatory fit.

I'm telling you, this isn't for us. This is a self soothing excercise that Silo is using for himself.

Months ago Silo was claiming that this poll means 82% of its respondents actually are opposed to gay marriage. Never mind the fact that many of the very same posters in this thread have stated on numerous occasions churches should not be forced to marry any couple despite the fact that we support gay marriage. Now it means 82% of the people don't support gays having children. Tomorrow it will mean the respondents supports wolves marrying if they have children. lol.

Silo says a lot of shit. Like all polls about gay marriage are faked. Including Gallup, Rueters, Rasmussen, everyone.

'Silo says' isn't exactly a rock solid standard of utility.

 

[mdk]

Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? Like I say, in order to bring such a thing out into every facet and/or area of life, then it should be expected to find plenty of resistance or a differing of opinion upon how marriage is supposed to be from a world that which some or many people do feel is being encroached upon now. Get used to it again I guess (the resistance to change on some things), because such a lifestyle that is seeking marriage in order to be more legit if that is the case, may not be accepted by everyone in their spheres of influence or within their ideologies or cultures in which they keep within the nation, and I'm guessing you know that by now.

Good points beagle. And judging by the poll at the top of the page, there is quite a lot of resistance in the real world to the idea of gay lifestyle marriage as a new lab experiment (to the kids having to be raised minus one of the genders in that artificial setting) replacing commonly held social values. 82% of the public are resistant to this change.

The poll at the top have this page literally says nothing about children being raised by gay parents. 82% of participants in this thread's poll do not believe churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. The vast and overwhelming of people that support gay marriage in this thread also believe the church shouldn't be forced to marry any couple. This of course is the part where you'll foolishly gas on about how individual members of the church are in fact churches themselves. An argument with no legal backing whatsoever.

Is Silo reimagning the poll again?

This is what? the 4th or 5th 'retcon' of the poll......when anyone can just scroll to the top of the page and see that Silo is having another hallucinatory fit.

I'm telling you, this isn't for us. This is a self soothing excercise that Silo is using for himself.

Months ago Silo was claiming that this poll means 82% of its respondents actually are opposed to gay marriage. Never mind the fact that many of the very same posters in this thread have stated on numerous occasions churches should not be forced to marry any couple despite the fact that we support gay marriage. Now it means 82% of the people don't support gays having children. Tomorrow it will mean the respondents supports wolves marrying if they have children. lol.

Silo says a lot of shit. Like all polls about gay marriage are faked. Including Gallup, Rueters, Rasmussen, everyone.

'Silo says' isn't exactly a rock solid standard of utility.

Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people. The real evidence is "likes" on Duck Dynasty's Facebook page, long lines at Chick-fil-A, and this thread's poll with it's ever changing findings.

 

[Skylar]

Good points beagle. And judging by the poll at the top of the page, there is quite a lot of resistance in the real world to the idea of gay lifestyle marriage as a new lab experiment (to the kids having to be raised minus one of the genders in that artificial setting) replacing commonly held social values. 82% of the public are resistant to this change.

The poll at the top have this page literally says nothing about children being raised by gay parents. 82% of participants in this thread's poll do not believe churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. The vast and overwhelming of people that support gay marriage in this thread also believe the church shouldn't be forced to marry any couple. This of course is the part where you'll foolishly gas on about how individual members of the church are in fact churches themselves. An argument with no legal backing whatsoever.

Is Silo reimagning the poll again?

This is what? the 4th or 5th 'retcon' of the poll......when anyone can just scroll to the top of the page and see that Silo is having another hallucinatory fit.

I'm telling you, this isn't for us. This is a self soothing excercise that Silo is using for himself.

Months ago Silo was claiming that this poll means 82% of its respondents actually are opposed to gay marriage. Never mind the fact that many of the very same posters in this thread have stated on numerous occasions churches should not be forced to marry any couple despite the fact that we support gay marriage. Now it means 82% of the people don't support gays having children. Tomorrow it will mean the respondents supports wolves marrying if they have children. lol.

Silo says a lot of shit. Like all polls about gay marriage are faked. Including Gallup, Rueters, Rasmussen, everyone.

'Silo says' isn't exactly a rock solid standard of utility.

Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people. The real evidence is "likes" on Duck Dynasty's Facebook page, long lines at Chick-fil-A, and this thread's poll with it's ever changing findings.

Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.

 

[beagle9]

The poll at the top have this page literally says nothing about children being raised by gay parents. 82% of participants in this thread's poll do not believe churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. The vast and overwhelming of people that support gay marriage in this thread also believe the church shouldn't be forced to marry any couple. This of course is the part where you'll foolishly gas on about how individual members of the church are in fact churches themselves. An argument with no legal backing whatsoever.

Is Silo reimagning the poll again?

This is what? the 4th or 5th 'retcon' of the poll......when anyone can just scroll to the top of the page and see that Silo is having another hallucinatory fit.

I'm telling you, this isn't for us. This is a self soothing excercise that Silo is using for himself.

Months ago Silo was claiming that this poll means 82% of its respondents actually are opposed to gay marriage. Never mind the fact that many of the very same posters in this thread have stated on numerous occasions churches should not be forced to marry any couple despite the fact that we support gay marriage. Now it means 82% of the people don't support gays having children. Tomorrow it will mean the respondents supports wolves marrying if they have children. lol.

Silo says a lot of shit. Like all polls about gay marriage are faked. Including Gallup, Rueters, Rasmussen, everyone.

'Silo says' isn't exactly a rock solid standard of utility.

Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people. The real evidence is "likes" on Duck Dynasty's Facebook page, long lines at Chick-fil-A, and this thread's poll with it's ever changing findings.

Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.

For someone who is so sure of yourself, you sure go to great lengths trying to defend your position here. It says a lot about the fear that y'all have about trying to convince those who are on the fence, that you all are right even though I think you are holding on to your side of the debate by a thread most of the time. Belittling usually signals frustration upon holding ones position on an issue, and it serves only as a distraction in which is usually short lived.

 

[Syriusly]

Is Silo reimagning the poll again?

This is what? the 4th or 5th 'retcon' of the poll......when anyone can just scroll to the top of the page and see that Silo is having another hallucinatory fit.

I'm telling you, this isn't for us. This is a self soothing excercise that Silo is using for himself.

Months ago Silo was claiming that this poll means 82% of its respondents actually are opposed to gay marriage. Never mind the fact that many of the very same posters in this thread have stated on numerous occasions churches should not be forced to marry any couple despite the fact that we support gay marriage. Now it means 82% of the people don't support gays having children. Tomorrow it will mean the respondents supports wolves marrying if they have children. lol.

Silo says a lot of shit. Like all polls about gay marriage are faked. Including Gallup, Rueters, Rasmussen, everyone.

'Silo says' isn't exactly a rock solid standard of utility.

Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people. The real evidence is "likes" on Duck Dynasty's Facebook page, long lines at Chick-fil-A, and this thread's poll with it's ever changing findings.

Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.

For someone who is so sure of yourself, you sure go to great lengths trying to defend your position here. It says a lot about the fear that y'all have about trying to convince those who are on the fence, that you all are right even though I think you are holding on to your side of the debate by a thread most of the time. Belittling usually signals frustration upon holding ones position on an issue, and it serves only as a distraction in which is usually short lived.

Fear of what?

Silhouette is delusional- and immune to rational thought- we respond to her posts for others sake.

I had great hopes for you, but not really anymore. Once you showed that you hold homosexuals to a different standard than you do your fellow Christians, and how you rationalized why, its pretty obvious that you just have convinced yourself that you are oppressed.

 

[Skylar]

Is Silo reimagning the poll again?

This is what? the 4th or 5th 'retcon' of the poll......when anyone can just scroll to the top of the page and see that Silo is having another hallucinatory fit.

I'm telling you, this isn't for us. This is a self soothing excercise that Silo is using for himself.

Months ago Silo was claiming that this poll means 82% of its respondents actually are opposed to gay marriage. Never mind the fact that many of the very same posters in this thread have stated on numerous occasions churches should not be forced to marry any couple despite the fact that we support gay marriage. Now it means 82% of the people don't support gays having children. Tomorrow it will mean the respondents supports wolves marrying if they have children. lol.

Silo says a lot of shit. Like all polls about gay marriage are faked. Including Gallup, Rueters, Rasmussen, everyone.

'Silo says' isn't exactly a rock solid standard of utility.

Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people. The real evidence is "likes" on Duck Dynasty's Facebook page, long lines at Chick-fil-A, and this thread's poll with it's ever changing findings.

Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.

For someone who is so sure of yourself, you sure go to great lengths trying to defend your position here.

8 words is 'great length'?

 

[Syriusly]

Months ago Silo was claiming that this poll means 82% of its respondents actually are opposed to gay marriage. Never mind the fact that many of the very same posters in this thread have stated on numerous occasions churches should not be forced to marry any couple despite the fact that we support gay marriage. Now it means 82% of the people don't support gays having children. Tomorrow it will mean the respondents supports wolves marrying if they have children. lol.

Silo says a lot of shit. Like all polls about gay marriage are faked. Including Gallup, Rueters, Rasmussen, everyone.

'Silo says' isn't exactly a rock solid standard of utility.

Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people. The real evidence is "likes" on Duck Dynasty's Facebook page, long lines at Chick-fil-A, and this thread's poll with it's ever changing findings.

Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.

For someone who is so sure of yourself, you sure go to great lengths trying to defend your position here.

8 words is 'great length'?

Beagle is upset that you can respond in a post in less than 600 words.

 

[Syriusly]

In short, you and your cult are evil... doing what evil has always done.

You are a sexual deviant.

Apparently you have visited California too

Lawyer In California Proposes Killing Gays With Sodomite Suppression Act

A lawyer in California has submitted a ballot initiative with the state Department of Justice calling for the death of anyone who engages in sodomy in the state, the San Diego Gay & Lesbian News reports.

The proposal by Matt McLaughlin, who lists his address in Huntington Beach, was received by the initiative coordinator at the Office of the Attorney General on Feb. 26. Enclosed was a $200 check and the complete text of his"Sodomite Suppression Act."The act outlines seven measuresrelating to those who engage in same-sex sodomy, "a monstrous evil that Almighty God, giver of freedom and liberty, commands us to suppress on pain of our utter destruction even as he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrha."

McLaughlin recommends punishment by death, even though a judge ruled thatCalifornia's death penalty is unconstitutionallast June:

Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God's just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating-wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.

 

[Skylar]

Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people.

Huh... Ya know what? I agree... Polls never represent a true pulse.

But ya know what DOES represent a true pulse?

Someone once had this idea... wherein groups of people would gather in distinct geographic areas, wherein these respective collectives had different views of everyday things and as a result had different ideas of how to govern, but for the most part, they agreed on the larger issues and were readily able to live along side one another, with few major challenges, but possessing the means to reason objectively, when larger challenges came along, they would work them out through a central governance, which was designed specifically for such, stating such the preface of it's charter of law, wherein it spoke to this government being designed to promote the best interests of the collective of otherwise distinct states.

The idea was for those distinct states to govern themselves, within the general Republican framework, where the 'true pulse of the people' would be determined by the legislation which their respective Republican legislatures, would craft bills, which would go to their respective chief executives, who would sign them into law, where the bills were recognized by the executive as being in keeping with the Constitution of their states.

Now... where one wanted to determine for instance, the 'pulse of the whole collective', one would look at the laws of the sum.

For instance, where one wanted to know 'the pulse of the people' with regard to say The Recognition of the Natural Standards of Marriage and that should would be defended by law... one should look at the circumstances wherein THE PEOPLE IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES, ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO INTRODUCED BILLS INTO THEIR CONGRESSIONAL HOUSE AND DEBATED THOSE BILLS, WHEREAFTER THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, VOTED TO PASS THE BILL AND SEND IT TO THE SENATE, WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS OF THE STATES CONSIDERED THE BILL AND DEBATED IT... AND WHEREAFTER, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS PASSED THE BILL AND SENT BACK DOWN TO THE CONGRESS... WHERE IT WAS DEBATED, MARKED UP TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY VETTING TO BE SURE THAT THE BILL COULD BE EFFECTIVELY INTRODUCED INTO LAW, WHEREUPON THE FORMALLY PASSED BILL WAS SENT TO THE STATES' CHIEF EXECUTIVE, WHO THEN CONSIDERED THE BILL AND AFTER DOING SO, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVES PASSED THE BILLS REPRESENTING THE WILL OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE INTO LAW.

And when the people voted into law interracial marriage bans, those too were invalid. As all state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. Rights trump powers. This concept infuriates many conservatives, who believe they should be able to strip any group they wish of any right they wish with a simple majority vote.

But that's not how our system works. Nor should work.

And of course, a vote in say....2008 doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the people now. The people solidly support same sex marriage, with support leading opposition by 12 to 19 points. You can ignore any poll that doesn't ape what you want to believe, but its not like public sentiment changes just because you ignore public sentiment.

"37 of 50 states have made Gay-Marriage Legal".

That is not only NOT TRUE, it is NOWHERE CLOSE TO BEING TRUE.

All the gays getting married in those 37 states say otherwise.

You keep pretending that no same sex marriage is occuring. Gays and lesbians will keep enjoying the benefits and recognition of same sex marriage.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

The vast majority of the people in those states voted to ENFORCE THE NATURAL STANDARD OF MARRIAGE, through the above noted legislative process. And less than 10 people, WHO DO NOT LIVE IN THOSE STATES, OVERTURNED "THE TRUE PULSE OF THE PEOPLE".

There are no 'natural' standards of marriage, as marriage doesn't exist in nature. We invented it. And it is whatever we say it is. And in 37 of 50 States, marriage includes same sex couples.

Get used to the idea. Its quite likely to expand to all 50 states in June.