What's new
By:

Gay Marriage is GO...

Jamezz said:
What does freedom of speech and/or religion have to do with getting married, please explain. Nobody is keeping any gay person from speaking their mind or joining any religion they want or not want to.
Click to expand...

Are you really that dense?
 
I consider myself a religious conservative but have never seen a problem with allowing civil same sex marriages. The worry for me is that those who have a moral or religious objection will be forced to perform these marriages or provide services for them. I know some will bring up the segregated bus or restaurant argument. I guess the old "no shirt, no shoes, no service" thing is illegal? And if someone comes into Chucky Cheese using MF'er every other word he can't be asked to leave because of freedom of speech laws?

My problem has always been that there is a very active militant wing of the LGBT community that will never be satisfied until every person in the U.S. Is forced to agree with them morally and every church and pastor is forced to perform gay marriages. They feel this is the only way to truly legitimize same-sex relationships. It is truly astounding these people want to be able to live how they wish, believe what they do, but aren't willing to let those with opposing opinions have the same freedoms.
 
Jamezz said:
Fair enough, I hereby demand my right to not having to pay for a higher home and car insurance, as well as having to pay higher taxes in general for being a single man.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states that 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

The only entity that has made and will enforce a law is the Government with this new ruling, one that doesn't address the discrimination sustained by non-married citizens. See, I can play the 'interpret it your own way' game too and find holes where there shouldn't be any. Bottom line is that I believe that this Reconstruction Amendment, as all others, were meant to be interpreted at an individual level.
Click to expand...

I've always interpreted a right as a freedom of action. Something that I am not prohibited from doing. Also, something that does not interfere with the ability of other people to enjoy their own rights. Never something that requires or forces the actions of other individuals.

Demanding lower rates on car insurance is an imposition of your interests upon those of your insurance carrier, where they must provide the same services for less money. Your insurance rates are essentially set by market forces and a negotiation between yourself and your carrier. Neither party is required to accept terms that they do not wish to. Of course, if you can't come to acceptable terms with any car insurance agency currently in existence than you will not be able to drive. It is, at that point, your choice if driving is worth more than the difference in terms available.
 
Stifle Tower said:
I consider myself a religious conservative but have never seen a problem with allowing civil same sex marriages. The worry for me is that those who have a moral or religious objection will be forced to perform these marriages or provide services for them. I know some will bring up the segregated bus or restaurant argument. I guess the old "no shirt, no shoes, no service" thing is illegal? And if someone comes into Chucky Cheese using MF'er every other word he can't be asked to leave because of freedom of speech laws?

My problem has always been that there is a very active militant wing of the LGBT community that will never be satisfied until every person in the U.S. Is forced to agree with them morally and every church and pastor is forced to perform gay marriages. They feel this is the only way to truly legitimize same-sex relationships. It is truly astounding these people want to be able to live how they wish, believe what they do, but aren't willing to let those with opposing opinions have the same freedoms.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I have never heard of this militant wing of the LGBT community demanding churches perform marriages for them. Never. I have a feeling that either its a fear tactic drummed up by the anti-gay marriage folks trying to scare religious people (imagine that), or they are such a small minority that they wouldn't even matter enough to get something like that to happen. I'm a non-religious liberal with many gay friends, some who are married, and they have NEVER wanted to get married within a religious organization, besides the Unitarian Church. Most religions have a prejudice view of LGBT folks and they want nothing to do with them either.
 
Gameface said:
I've always interpreted a right as a freedom of action. Something that I am not prohibited from doing. Also, something that does not interfere with the ability of other people to enjoy their own rights. Never something that requires or forces the actions of other individuals.

Demanding lower rates on car insurance is an imposition of your interests upon those of your insurance carrier, where they must provide the same services for less money. Your insurance rates are essentially set by market forces and a negotiation between yourself and your carrier. Neither party is required to accept terms that they do not wish to. Of course, if you can't come to acceptable terms with any car insurance agency currently in existence than you will not be able to drive. It is, at that point, your choice if driving is worth more than the difference in terms available.
Click to expand...

I don't like these terms, I'm switching over to Geico.
 
Jamezz said:
That pastor is a flat out idiot. The one issue I have with this ruling is that I consider it a clear violation of the 10th amendment. The closer to the people these decisions are made the better. But here we have big Gov't sticking their nose in people's lives again.
Click to expand...

There are a number of polls, but all of them are the same result; the majority of Americans support gay marriage. So don't mistake what's right with what you think is right. Negged.
 
ElRoach0 said:
It really is. And at that point, if it ever came to that, I'd actually be against it. As someone that has the power to sign marriage certificates and perform ceremonies(which isn't much power at all), if I had a problem with someone's relationship I would refuse to do the ceremony. Anyone who tries to write a law telling me I have to is going to have to fine me.

But you also have to wonder why would a gay couple want to be married in, say, an LDS temple? a place where their union clearly not wanted or respected? No law is going to change that. No amount of armed men coming into a temple and demanding a gay sealing take place is going to change their attitude about it.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between not serving an individual and not serving a group of individuals. In the same way that there is a difference between not promoting a woman and not promoting women.

I actually think that sooner or later this will lead to the loss of tax exempt status for churches that refuse to marry gay people.

The thing is churches really should embrace dropping the 501 c3 designation. When Americans were first considering dropping church sponsorship(Churches paid for by the state) many were worried that it would irreparably harm both churches ability to continue its activities and religious participation in America. They were wrong. Following the end of church sponsorship America went through "the Great Awakening". Religion reached a level of activity and participation in America not seen since the puritans landed.
Dropping 501c3 status would give the churches much more leeway(for better or for worse)with which to operate. An example is how 501c3 status ties the hands of an organizations political spending.
 
This ruling shouldn't affect churches in any way. LDS temples will still be able to bar gay marriages, just as they're able to bar any heterosexual marriages who aren't temple worthy.

This new law doesn't affect heterosexuals in any way, shape, or form.
 
Xsy said:
This ruling shouldn't affect churches in any way. LDS temples will still be able to bar gay marriages, just as they're able to bar any heterosexual marriages who aren't temple worthy.

This new law doesn't affect heterosexuals in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

seriously everything we do in live affect things in a way a shape or form.

so by lying that this wont affect heterosexual is a simple disillusion. now don't get this twisted not arguing if it is a good or bad affect. I am just stating that this has an effect on society as a whole and since 95%-98% of people are heterosexuals it also affects them(again not arguing good or bad effect) .

so please dont twist it with your liberal lbgtq agenda
 
Xsy said:
This ruling shouldn't affect churches in any way. LDS temples will still be able to bar gay marriages, just as they're able to bar any heterosexual marriages who aren't temple worthy.

This new law doesn't affect heterosexuals in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

Based on the Bob Jones case from the early 80's, with this new ruling, the IRS would have the ability to take away the tax exempt status from Christian universities that won't admit homosexuals because it goes against their beliefs. So yeah, it kinda does effect heterosexuals.
 
Howard said:
Based on the Bob Jones case from the early 80's, with this new ruling, the IRS would have the ability to take away the tax exempt status from Christian universities that won't admit homosexuals because it goes against their beliefs. So yeah, it kinda does effect heterosexuals.
Click to expand...
How does this ruling affect that at all? That is, how does the prospective student's marital status make any difference? Have any "Christian" universities lost tax exemption for not admitting homosexuals?
 
GVC said:
How does this ruling affect that at all? That is, how does the prospective student's marital status make any difference? Have any "Christian" universities lost tax exemption for not admitting homosexuals?
Click to expand...

Serious?

This is a synopsis of the case (where I think the university was completely in the wrong btw): "Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination."

Practices contrary to a compelling government public policy...doesn't sound anything like a Christian school not allowing homosexuals after gay marriage was legalized.
 
Howard said:
Serious?

This is a synopsis of the case (where I think the university was completely in the wrong btw): "Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination."

Practices contrary to a compelling government public policy...doesn't sound anything like a Christian school not allowing homosexuals after gay marriage was legalized.
Click to expand...
Why would it be any different than before gay marriage was legalized? Admittance based on sexual preference has nothing to do with marital rights. Has any bigoted university lost their tax exemption for refusing to admit a student based on their sexual preference or behavior?
 
Howard said:
Based on the Bob Jones case from the early 80's, with this new ruling, the IRS would have the ability to take away the tax exempt status from Christian universities that won't admit homosexuals because it goes against their beliefs. So yeah, it kinda does effect heterosexuals.
Click to expand...

I for one would do cartwheels if tax exempt status was removed from all religious institutions...at least their for profit enterprises, like churches and schools.
 
Don’t Expect a Flood of Gay Marriages


Although gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states, don’t expect to see long lines of homosexuals applying for marriage licenses (especially after the initial publicity-seeking flurry is over). After 10 years of same-sex marriage in the Netherlands, The Institute For Marriage and Public Policy commissioned research into the question: What has the demand for same-sex marriage turned out to be among same-sex couples? The answer: “Gay marriage is relatively rare.” The central statistics are:

Just 20 percent of Dutch homosexual couples are married, compared with 80 percent of heterosexual couples.
Dutch survey data suggests that 2.8% of Dutch men and 1.4% of Dutch women are gay or lesbian.
About 8% of gay and lesbian people have chosen to marry.

Why so little take-up of same-sex marriage?

Vera Bergkamp, head of a Dutch gay rights organization, says there are three main reasons for the lack of nuptial enthusiasm among gay couples:

Less pressure from family and friends, fewer gay couples marrying to have children than their straight counterparts, and a more individualist, less family‐orientated mindset among many homosexuals.

Why then has so much time, money, and effort been invested in a gay marriage drive that that will only result in a small percent of a tiny percent actually being married?

As I’ve written before: Gay marriage is not primarily about gay marriage, it is mainly about silencing gay consciences. But there’s a second reason. Gay marriage is also about silencing Christians.

Silencing Christians

If I hated God and despised Christians, I’d be an ardent supporter of same-sex marriage. What better way to express enmity against God and His people? That’s a major reason why so many homosexuals who will never marry, and why so many heterosexuals who have no interest in same-sex marriage, wanted it legalized and mandated by the Supreme Court. They wanted a weapon to shove in the face of God and to wield against His faithful people. And the Supreme Court effectively handed our heads to them on a platter. Just watch as this instrument of “equal love” is now wielded against all dissenters. You’re about to see some very unequal hate.

Yes, there will be high-profile cases where pastors and other prominent Christians will be convicted, bankrupted, and imprisoned for so-called hate crimes. Businesses will continue to be targeted and closed down for any explicit or implicit disapproval of same-sex weddings.

But much of the persecution will go largely unnoticed, behind closed doors, in the everyday lives of ordinary Christians: jobs will not be offered, promotions will not be awarded, contracts will be lost, team positions will be forfeited, downsizing will carefully “select” its victims, our children will suffer lost opportunities, our churches will be penalized. All for holding the “wrong view” of marriage; which was the right view in all human civilization until the last few years.

Loving Darkness, Hating Light

We are about to see as we have never seen before in the West in our lifetime: “Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light” (John 3:19-20).

Remember what happened to the two angels when they came into Sodom (Genesis 19). A whole city of homosexuals lined up to attack them. And even when God blinded them, they still searched and scrabbled at the door to get to their intended victims.

As they weren’t exactly lacking in opportunities for homosexual sex, what motivated their irrational desire to attack these two particular men? They saw holiness as they had never seen it before, they saw brighter light than ever before, and they were nearer to God than ever before. And the holiness had to be quashed; the light had to be extinguished; the god-like-ness had to be erased.

That, I believe is what gay marriage is about for many (note, I did not say ALL) homosexuals, and for many heterosexuals too. Yes, it’s about silencing conscience; but it’s also about silencing Christians. And ultimately it’s about silencing God.

(I know there are many “moderate” homosexuals out there who just want to live a quiet life, who don’t want anything to do with persecuting Christians, and who are embarrassed about what bad winners many gay leaders are being. But I’m giving up hope that such moderates will ever have the courage to speak up against their own radicals and fundamentalists.)

So, don’t expect a flood of same-sex marriages. But do expect a flood of “hate-crime” laws and “non-discrimination statutes,” and “conditional government contracts.” And then a flood of Christian victims.

Unless there’s a flood of fire and brimstone first.

Flood of Love

In the meantime, we have an opportunity to love our haters as never before.

No, we will never agree with your same-sex marriage or do anything that in any way expresses approval of same-sex weddings. But if you do marry (and if you don’t), we will love you in every other way possible; we will love you in ways that will surprise and astonish you.

We’ll bless you when you curse us.

We’ll pray for you when you abuse us.

We’ll be kind to you when you are cruel to us.

We’ll not retaliate when you ruin us.

We’ll defend your right to speak and disagree with us even when you want to silence us.

We’ll be a Good Samaritan to you when you are a road-crosser and other-sider to us.

We’ll employ you for non-faith-related jobs if you are the best candidate, even though you want to bankrupt our businesses.

We’ll help you when you’re poor even though you want to impoverish us.

We’ll not insult you when you call us bigots.

We’ll be the best neighbors you’ve ever had.

We’ll love you as much as we love ourselves – and that’s a lot.

And we just have two simple requests of you. Accept that, because of the Bible’s teaching, we will never agree with gay marriage. And please don’t ask us to do anything for your weddings.

That’s it. Is that really too much to ask?
Click to expand...
.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Other than a bunch of rotten-hearted, unintelligent people getting upset and a bunch of other people being very happy to be treated as human beings? Not much.
Click to expand...

Name calling to discredit a point of view you don't agree with does not help. Name calling in attempts to discredit from either point of view is unhelpful.
It is understood that you are in support of same sex marriage and despise those who are against the practice.
It is possible to disagree with something without hating the people involved no matter which side of a divide you are on.
I understand fully what you are trying to do here, but it only widens the gulf rather than bridges the gap, if that is your intention, bravo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top