What's new
By:

Gay Marriage is GO...

ElRoach0 said:
I do call them silly for it. They should know better. What about it?

Got a link to back that up?
Click to expand...

Right you say it's silly for them to think it can ever happen. Then, when pressed, not only do you say it is possible but you are actually for it.

Florist sued in Washington for refusing to serve a gay wedding and lost.
https://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/living/stutzman-florist-gay/

This summer, the Supreme Court will rule on gay marriage, and many observers expect the ruling to be a Roe v. Wade-type legal landmark, perhaps declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The Congress may consider again a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would make sexual orientation and gender identity into protected classes. This means that what is happening to Barronelle Stutzman in Washington State could be happening to Christians nationwide in very short order.
Click to expand...
 
There was also a Baker in New Mexico that was sued and lost.

But those are not the same as a Church.
 
moevillini said:
to Spazz and Dutch (and others who state that it is strictly a religious issue)

What do you say about the long list of religions that SUPPORT equal rights for same-sex couples?

Is "your" religion the only "right" religion?

take a look at this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations

the list includes some large denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ - several other large denominations (such as Lutherans and Methodists) don't take a position either in favor or opposed but leave it up to individual churches

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches
Click to expand...

Good point. People who argue for the that law should privilege religious belief in matters of public policy always (or typically) assume that it their religion, or their interpretation of a particular religion, that will be privileged over others. I guarantee that IF they perceived that another religion, or a different interpretation of their religion were to be privileged, they would back track quickly on their loud, boisterous claims that faith-based beliefs should be privileged in making public policies.

It is purely an argument of convenience, and not one of true principle.
 
Stoked said:
There was also a Baker in New Mexico that was sued and lost.

But those are not the same as a Church.
Click to expand...

Correct. If that baker denied service based on race they would have been sued and lost as well. Sexual orientation as a protected class is next up and will happen. But the 1st Amendment will still protect churches and religion.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Correct. If that baker denied service based on race they would have been sued and lost as well. Sexual orientation as a protected class is next up and will happen. But the 1st Amendment will still protect churches and religion.
Click to expand...

I agree but I also think there will be those that sue over a church not marrying them or allowing them to use their buildings. I think the Church will win and that will be that.
 
moevillini said:
So why didn't those traveling dudes in England just ask God to sort out the issues for them? God probably could have done a bang-up job.
Click to expand...
thats a theological discusion that has no bearing on this.

it is the reason govs started registering marriages. but with everything gov related they always grab more and more and more power, and today they decided to redefine it
 
moevillini said:
to Spazz and Dutch (and others who state that it is strictly a religious issue)

What do you say about the long list of religions that SUPPORT equal rights for same-sex couples?

Is "your" religion the only "right" religion?

take a look at this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations

the list includes some large denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ - several other large denominations (such as Lutherans and Methodists) don't take a position either in favor or opposed but leave it up to individual churches

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches
Click to expand...

it is not only a religious issue to me btw. i am jewish and you saw i argued from christian standpoint.
i think it devalues procreation. and if procreation is devalued. live is devalued. and thats bad for society
 
DutchJazzer said:
it is not only a religious issue to me btw. i am jewish and you saw i argued from christian standpoint.
i think it devalues procreation. and if procreation is devalued. live is devalued. and thats bad for society
Click to expand...

How exactly does it devalue procreation.

You do understand there is a difference between homosexual relationships existing and legalized gay marriage, right? So is the prohibition just a complicated way for you to feel better about the state of homosexuality based on some fallacious belief that if something isn't legal it doesn't exist.

Or is it that you feel institutionalized discrimination actually discourages undesirable behaviours, so you support discriminatory legal prohibitions because in certain circumstances such things result in a reduction of undesirable behaviours? And the victims of this discrimination are engaging in undesirable behaviours and therefore their suffering for the public good is justified?
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Correct. If that baker denied service based on race they would have been sued and lost as well. Sexual orientation as a protected class is next up and will happen. But the 1st Amendment will still protect churches and religion.
Click to expand...

Yes the 1st amendment will protect churches from being sued for discrimination but it will not protect their tax exemption. A 501c3 designation is not a right for religions covered by the 1st amendment. When the IRS decides to act and remove that designation they will probably win.
 
Gameface said:
How exactly does it devalue procreation.

You do understand there is a difference between homosexual relationships existing and legalized gay marriage, right? So is the prohibition just a complicated way for you to feel better about the state of homosexuality based on some fallacious belief that if something isn't legal it doesn't exist.

Or is it that you feel institutionalized discrimination actually discourages undesirable behaviours, so you support discriminatory legal prohibitions because in certain circumstances such things result in a reduction of undesirable behaviours? And the victims of this discrimination are engaging in undesirable behaviours and therefore their suffering for the public good is justified?
Click to expand...

been over this a million times! if you do not understadn the religious concept of mariage and the social concept of mariage. you are free to make of it what you want. i am free to disagree. you are free to call me a bigot. if that makes me a bigot i am proud.
everyone is free to do what he or she wants. i know i would never step to a government to ask for a mariage license! because tis none of the govs business. mariage is between me the woman i am marrying the chuurch(or in this case synagoge) and god. govenrment should get the **** out.

i would never protest someones mariage. i will never attend a gay mariage(i have gay cousins on both sides). and i teach my fuiture children the values of mariage. i am free to do so.

you are free to do whatever you want.

i just think it is extremly unfair to people who disagree with gay "mariage" to be labeled hatefull and bigots and discriminatory.

this whole 14th ammendment hogwash those jurors did is a farce
 
DutchJazzer said:
been over this a million times! if you do not understadn the religious concept of mariage and the social concept of mariage. you are free to make of it what you want. i am free to disagree. you are free to call me a bigot. if that makes me a bigot i am proud.
everyone is free to do what he or she wants. i know i would never step to a government to ask for a mariage license! because tis none of the govs business. mariage is between me the woman i am marrying the chuurch(or in this case synagoge) and god. govenrment should get the **** out.

i would never protest someones mariage. i will never attend a gay mariage(i have gay cousins on both sides). and i teach my fuiture children the values of mariage. i am free to do so.

you are free to do whatever you want.

i just think it is extremly unfair to people who disagree with gay "mariage" to be labeled hatefull and bigots and discriminatory.

this whole 14th ammendment hogwash those jurors did is a farce
Click to expand...

So while against gay marriage (and any gay relationship of any kind, as well as any expression of homosexuality) for religious reasons you fully support the end to the government prohibiting gay marriage? Okay, didn't seem like that was what you were saying. Thanks for the clarification.
 
Gameface said:
So while against gay marriage (and any gay relationship of any kind, as well as any expression of homosexuality) for religious reasons you fully support the end to the government prohibiting gay marriage? Okay, didn't seem like that was what you were saying. Thanks for the clarification.
Click to expand...

i am not supporting the government in anything mariage related.

mariage regulation is none of the govs business. i have no trust and support for any government so in a way i could care less about what they deem legal and illegal. but i do have an opinion on stuff
 
The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.

“I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both,” Victor said. He had previously been married to Bianca. Two and a half years ago they met Mirjam Geven through an internet chatbox. Eight weeks later Mirjam deserted her husband and came to live with Victor and Bianca. After Mirjam’s divorce the threesome decided to marry.

Victor: “A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage.”
Click to expand...

this happened 4 years after gay marriage legalization in netherlands!


ooh yeah 1 thing you guys might not know about this tolerant Netherlands
it is illegal to get married in a church(hold a marriage ceremony in a church. before first getting married first in the court house.
you will get arrested and serve jail time. cant find any English sources for this.

really like say you have a marriage ceremony the pastor/Rabi whatever first has to confirm you already got married at the courthouse then and only then can he preform the ceremony.
lots of religious people want to get married in church first then get registered at the court house. but they are denied this right.
they first have to get married in front of some corrupt tyrannical officials at courthouse before marrying in a church.

thats religious tyranny right there in a country which was the first to legalize gay mariage!
 
So if it has been their business for the last several hundred years, with no previous objection, it's okay for them to not specifically ban homosexual marriage?
 
Gameface said:
So if it has been their business for the last several hundred years, with no previous objection, it's okay for them to not specifically ban homosexual marriage?
Click to expand...
the governments do always whatever the **** they want.
is it okay for them to redefine marriage? in my opinion i think not.
was it ok for governments from idi amin, pol pot, mao, stallin, hitler to disarm people? i think not but they do it anyway.
was it ok for governments to legalize and finance abortion? in my opinion NO!
was it ok for governments to tax people too much? i think not!

doesnt matter what i think govs do whatever the **** they want

governments are just governments they do whatever the **** they want. who are you or who am i to say otherwise. as long as they stay out of my way. within reason.

i always had objections to this!(so no previous objection comment you made does not apply to me).
 
Just wanted to make sure you were still bat **** crazy. Thanks for the confirmation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top