Colorado votes NO to gay marriage

[bodecea]

No, dear, this has everything to do with religion. Matrimony "marriage" is a covenant made between a man and a woman. A covenant instituted by God.

There's church doctrine and there' civil law. The gay marriage debate is about changing civil law, not church doctrine. Civil law has no place in church doctrine and church doctrine has no place in civil law.

If that were only so.

Here's the rub- as I stated earlier and as is the fact, in a number of states prior to same sex marriage laws; having the benefits of marriage was not enough. Homosexuals want to redefine the idea of marriage as traditionally and spiritually held by religious entities. They wish to force some sort of normalcy with regards to their lifestyle. It is not normal. It will always be a deviance from normal.

What will and has happened, is that those who have religious objections will be civilly attacked.

Don't need laws for that.....unless you think other churches need laws on the books to enforce their "spirituality".

 

[sfcalifornia]

131 gay-friendly churches in Colorado willing to perform a same-sex marriage.


http://www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/united_states/us_colorado.htm

I've been watching gay couples get married in religious ceremonies for decades.

Today's issue regarding same-sex marriage has nothing to do with religion.

This is about getting the government to recognize and grant federal and state benefits to same-sex married couples.

A 'church' that ignores plain Biblical teaching to affirm homosexuality as a laudable and normal lifestyle is not Christian, and not long for this world in historical terms.

These groups are little more than social clubs where they come together periodically and practice being nice to each other. There is no transcendant Truth to them and no concept of the eternal Truth or Love of the life Jesus Christ led.

They are heretical poseurs who want social approval more than the Love of God.

And He will remove them from this world due to their inability to grow in membership over time.

LOL

The old "My religion is better than your religion" routine.

And that's exactly why you have no argument in this debate.

Because the government doesn't give a shit about transcendant Truth and whatever.

They're all the same in the eyes of the government.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

131 gay-friendly churches in Colorado willing to perform a same-sex marriage.


http://www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/united_states/us_colorado.htm

I've been watching gay couples get married in religious ceremonies for decades.

Today's issue regarding same-sex marriage has nothing to do with religion.

This is about getting the government to recognize and grant federal and state benefits to same-sex married couples.

A 'church' that ignores plain Biblical teaching to affirm homosexuality as a laudable and normal lifestyle is not Christian, and not long for this world in historical terms.

These groups are little more than social clubs where they come together periodically and practice being nice to each other. There is no transcendant Truth to them and no concept of the eternal Truth or Love of the life Jesus Christ led.

They are heretical poseurs who want social approval more than the Love of God.

And He will remove them from this world due to their inability to grow in membership over time.

LOL

The old "My religion is better than your religion" routine.

And that's exactly why you have no argument in this debate.

Because the government doesn't give a shit about transcendant Truth and whatever.

They're all the same in the eyes of the government.

Exactly where in the bible does it say Homosexual act are acceptable?

 

[bodecea]

A 'church' that ignores plain Biblical teaching to affirm homosexuality as a laudable and normal lifestyle is not Christian, and not long for this world in historical terms.

These groups are little more than social clubs where they come together periodically and practice being nice to each other. There is no transcendant Truth to them and no concept of the eternal Truth or Love of the life Jesus Christ led.

They are heretical poseurs who want social approval more than the Love of God.

And He will remove them from this world due to their inability to grow in membership over time.

LOL

The old "My religion is better than your religion" routine.

And that's exactly why you have no argument in this debate.

Because the government doesn't give a shit about transcendant Truth and whatever.

They're all the same in the eyes of the government.

Exactly where in the bible does it say Homosexual act are acceptable?

Right next to where it says shell fish and pork are acceptable to eat.

 

[sfcalifornia]

A 'church' that ignores plain Biblical teaching to affirm homosexuality as a laudable and normal lifestyle is not Christian, and not long for this world in historical terms.

These groups are little more than social clubs where they come together periodically and practice being nice to each other. There is no transcendant Truth to them and no concept of the eternal Truth or Love of the life Jesus Christ led.

They are heretical poseurs who want social approval more than the Love of God.

And He will remove them from this world due to their inability to grow in membership over time.

LOL

The old "My religion is better than your religion" routine.

And that's exactly why you have no argument in this debate.

Because the government doesn't give a shit about transcendant Truth and whatever.

They're all the same in the eyes of the government.

Exactly where in the bible does it say Homosexual act are acceptable?

Once again for the cheap seats: The government doesn't give a shit.

 

[Flopper]

No, dear, this has everything to do with religion. Matrimony "marriage" is a covenant made between a man and a woman. A covenant instituted by God.

There's church doctrine and there' civil law. The gay marriage debate is about changing civil law, not church doctrine. Civil law has no place in church doctrine and church doctrine has no place in civil law.

In the abstract academic view, yes, you are right.

Practically, the triumph of homophiles to the extent that we all have to subsidize gay marriages as normal and are subject to hate crime laws should we oppose, requires all religions in our nation to agree to and accomodate this new view of homosexuality as a norm.

Those churches and social groups who resist will be subject to the same type of social censorship and ostrocism that racists receive today.

This social conflict will see either the secular Civil Rights Establishment triumph or the Biblical Christian churches triumph by defeating the normalization of homosexuality.

I am confident that the Biblical churches will come out on top in the long run as it always has when threatened by Jacobinish radicalism.

I don’t understand what you mean when you say, “we all have to subsidize gay marriages as normal”. If it’s legalized you would have to accept that gay marriage is legal. You certainly wouldn’t have to accept it as normal. Your church or religious sec can choose not to perform gay marriages, condemn them, oust gay members who marry or whatever measures the church deems proper to enforce the church’s interpretation of God’s law. However, we should not use civil law to enforce religious beliefs. The issue of gay marriage should be decided based on its harm to society not based religious beliefs.

 

[starcraftzzz]

I would absolutely LOVE the Supreme Court of the US to hear a case- Eventually they will.

Your statement does not address nor counter mine.

You claim civil unions mean we dont need gay marraige. However if you beleive that theyn you believe that separate is equal

Nice try.
To date, gays are NOT a demographic minority group.

Watt so a group that equals 5% of the population isn't a minority. Perhaps the problem here re that you are so stupid you do not know what a minority is.

Homosexuals belong to a behavior group.
Therefore your theory of using "separate but equal" does not apply.

Only if you he a retard who thinks being attracted to certain people equals a behavior. Its as lf you think liking the color red and fish is a behavior. Agian the problem here is that you are illiterate

 

[starcraftzzz]

All they need is one state to prove discrimination. See, they can just get married in Boston and then Colorado has to recognize it.

If I move from Michigan to Colorado, do they recognize that I am married or do I have to get married all over again in Colorado? So a gay can get married in San Francisco and Colorado has to recognize that legal binding contract. If not, on what basis? Religious?

A homo marriage license is not like a driver's license.

Drivers license is issued in all 50 states; and so every state recognizes each others license.

But only a few states give out homo marriage licenses; thus the non issuing states do not have to recognize them.

Sorry. If I go to a new state to live, I have to get a new drivers licence. A married gay couple can drive through your state and there is no reason to have you recognize that they are married if they are just driving through. But if they move there permenantly they have to get a new drivers licence. But a married couple doesn't have to get a new marriage certificate jsut because they move to Georgia. Georgia recognizes that if they were married in Michigan, they are married in Georgia too.

Or can I just move to Utah and tell my wife to go fuck herself?

I'm not asking any church to accept it, but the state has to. So does the IRS, insurance companies, mortgage lenders, courts, hospitals, employer, etc.

No dumbass if you move to another state you can still use your license from your old state to drive.
So plz come back when you are not 100% clueless

 

[KevinWestern]

Vandalism + the use of a Derogutory Slur....

Very classy thing to post and give a "thumbs up" for. If you applaud these sorts of things, then perhaps you should reexamine your OWN values before forcing them upon everyone else (because they're probably not all that great)...

Just sayin'.

 

[starcraftzzz]

They already can marry the person they choose. They are simply required to abide by the eligibility process the rest of us are.

They are allowed to marry anyone who:

1) Is the opposite gender
2) Is not currently married
3) Is not a blood relation
4) is above the age of consent.

Ah so they can marrry anyone they choose unless unless...

Just like every other person in the United States is.

They can marry anyone they choose. What they can't do is redefine the definition of marriage to describe what they do with someone they enter a relationship with.

See thsi si the problem you are illiterate and think them not being able to marry certain people means they can marry anyone they want to. Are you going to tell us water is wet and isn't wet next?

Ill chalk this down to ignorance. But you do realize that thousands of years of wisdom and tradition didnt forbid women from voting or make blacks slaves right?

Women were voting in American since before the revolution. A few decades into the Republic they started voting for the wrong people so those in power tried to strip them of their right to vote. Which started the effort to restore women to the vote.

Africans were made slaves only several hundred years ago. When slavery started in America it wasnt limited to race. The Founders set up a system they expected would expell slavery at the soonest opportunity. Unfortunately, things didnt go as planned so it took longer.

Yep how wonderful all those year of wisdom lead to slavery women nto being able to vote the burning of witches, and medical practices such as blood letting.

Actually, they didn't. They said they wouldnt recognize it as marriage. But the relationship is still perfectly legal. The state cant prevent two individuals from making agreements with one another. They can only choose not to recognize those agreements.

So basinally you want the state to only recognize your agreements and to not recgonize others.
The problem here is that you think you not being able to force other people to do things is someone restricting your freedom

The left has worked hard at obscurring the real issue in this debate and tying an emotional component to it. But the truth will set you free.

Yes you claiming that we can only marry if we have kids is the left obscurring

As I never claimed that, how can you statement become true?[/quote]
Jesus you said it 4 posts back. Perhaps the problem is that you have the memory of a gold fish

I know you can't deal with the argument and hence you have to resort to such tactics, but it really doesnt help your cause.

Yes you lying and being a retard is other people not dealing with arguments

 

[JimBowie1958]

LOL

The old "My religion is better than your religion" routine.

And that's exactly why you have no argument in this debate.

Because the government doesn't give a shit about transcendant Truth and whatever.

They're all the same in the eyes of the government.

Exactly where in the bible does it say Homosexual act are acceptable?

Right next to where it says shell fish and pork are acceptable to eat.

That is Old Testament and largely irrelevant to Christians.

Have you read the first chapter of Romans? Didnt think so.

 

[bodecea]

Exactly where in the bible does it say Homosexual act are acceptable?

Right next to where it says shell fish and pork are acceptable to eat.

That is Old Testament and largely irrelevant to Christians.

Have you read the first chapter of Romans? Didnt think so.

Really? Then the stuff about homosexuality is irrelevant too....PROBLEM SOLVED! Thank you all for coming.

(BTW, Romans was a letter written by Paul....last I checked, Paul was not god....not even Jesus. He was just a guy who first prosecuted christians then flip-flopped)

 

[JimBowie1958]

There's church doctrine and there' civil law. The gay marriage debate is about changing civil law, not church doctrine. Civil law has no place in church doctrine and church doctrine has no place in civil law.

In the abstract academic view, yes, you are right.

Practically, the triumph of homophiles to the extent that we all have to subsidize gay marriages as normal and are subject to hate crime laws should we oppose, requires all religions in our nation to agree to and accomodate this new view of homosexuality as a norm.

Those churches and social groups who resist will be subject to the same type of social censorship and ostrocism that racists receive today.

This social conflict will see either the secular Civil Rights Establishment triumph or the Biblical Christian churches triumph by defeating the normalization of homosexuality.

I am confident that the Biblical churches will come out on top in the long run as it always has when threatened by Jacobinish radicalism.

I don’t understand what you mean when you say, “we all have to subsidize gay marriages as normal”.

Marriage as an institution recieves tax dollars in various ways to encourage having children. As I understand it Civil Unions dont get those benefits. And the general acknowledgement of gay marriage as a norm is outrageous to me.

I know gays hate to hear this, but if you accept gay marriage as normal there is no logical reason to stop there and every other weird permutation of sexual relations will become normalized and our nation's demographics will collapse.

If it’s legalized you would have to accept that gay marriage is legal.

I would acknowledge it as legal but I would never refer to it as marriage.

You certainly wouldn’t have to accept it as normal.

Yeah, but you would just have to remain silent on the matter or else get ostracized like racists do today.

Your church or religious sec can choose not to perform gay marriages, condemn them, oust gay members who marry or whatever measures the church deems proper to enforce the church’s interpretation of God’s law.

For now. Look what is going on in New Zeland, Canada and UK; threats of legal action if a preacher says antyhing that they consider 'hate speech'.

The whole rubric of 'hate speech' laws is designed to silence dissent from the multi-cultural consensus the elites have adopted.

Thats fine by me as multi-culturalism will be a demographic torpedo to the reigning elite while the rest of our nation grows.

Eventually the Anglo, Seven Sisters elite will be displaced by more natural and robust groups.

However, we should not use civil law to enforce religious beliefs. The issue of gay marriage should be decided based on its harm to society not based religious beliefs.

A collapse in demographic growth rates is one easy to spot harm, but these same fools think that a larger population is a bad thing, lol.

 

[GoneBezerk]

People from Boulder and Denver are trying to jam their morals down the throats of everyone else.....typical of liberals.

Oh they like to eat shit, so everyone must like to eat shit.....

 

[Flopper]

Marriage as an institution recieves tax dollars in various ways to encourage having children. As I understand it Civil Unions dont get those benefits. And the general acknowledgement of gay marriage as a norm is outrageous to me.

Nope. You haven't heard of the marriage penalty? Higher taxes are required for a married couple who earned the same as two single individuals. So it doesn't cost you as a tax payer any more whether a gay couple is married or single. In fact, for those in higher tax brackets, the married couple will pay more taxes than if they were single.

I know gays hate to hear this, but if you accept gay marriage as normal there is no logical reason to stop there and every other weird permutation of sexual relations will become normalized and our nation's demographics will collapse.

This slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy because there is no reason to believe that normalization of "other weird permutation of sexual relations" will inevitably follow.

A collapse in demographic growth rates is one easy to spot harm, but these same fools think that a larger population is a bad thing, lol.

Again, your reasoning is a bit faulty. Whether a gay couple marries or not, the birth rate will not change. I doubt you will see any two people of the same sex giving birth to kids regardless of whether they are married or not.

 

[thereisnospoon]

All they need is one state to prove discrimination. See, they can just get married in Boston and then Colorado has to recognize it.

If I move from Michigan to Colorado, do they recognize that I am married or do I have to get married all over again in Colorado? So a gay can get married in San Francisco and Colorado has to recognize that legal binding contract. If not, on what basis? Religious?

A homo marriage license is not like a driver's license.

Drivers license is issued in all 50 states; and so every state recognizes each others license.

But only a few states give out homo marriage licenses; thus the non issuing states do not have to recognize them.

Sorry. If I go to a new state to live, I have to get a new drivers licence. A married gay couple can drive through your state and there is no reason to have you recognize that they are married if they are just driving through. But if they move there permenantly they have to get a new drivers licence. But a married couple doesn't have to get a new marriage certificate jsut because they move to Georgia. Georgia recognizes that if they were married in Michigan, they are married in Georgia too.

Or can I just move to Utah and tell my wife to go fuck herself?

I'm not asking any church to accept it, but the state has to. So does the IRS, insurance companies, mortgage lenders, courts, hospitals, employer, etc.

No genius. That is not the point.
What that means is if one has a driver's license, they do not have to apply for a license for each state in which they operate a motor vehicle. That is due to the full faith and credit clause and interstate commerce( For CDL's) and the fact that all 50 states, DC and US territories require a DL plus all allow the operation of motor vehicles.
The limitations on this are when ALL states do not recognize or offer.
For example, some states reciprocate fishing licenses. Others do not. Same applies to licensed horsemen in the horse racing business. Some states allow trainers to use their home state license while others require the horseman acquire a license for that particular state. Same goes for attorneys and insurance agents/brokers adjusters.

 

[Inthemiddle]

No, dear, this has everything to do with religion. Matrimony "marriage" is a covenant made between a man and a woman. A covenant instituted by God.

Who's god, yours? I don't acknowledge your god, I have my own deities, and in my spiritual tradition gay marriage is affirmed. So, are you ready to allow those with beliefs like mine maintain the same rights?

As I stated, the "government benefits" in the state of Colorado had already been granted by referendum in 2006. Any homosexual couple can go out and have a civil ceremony and have these "benefits". But the act of "marriage" is an act that has historically been granted between a "man and a woman". It is an institution that is historically religious.

I've demonstrated before how this is patently false. Homosexual marriages and unions have been known to humanity at least since the beginning of recorded history. But marriage has not always been a religious institution. As a matter of fact, the church being involved in the institution of marriage is a comparatively recent phenomena. In olden times, marriage was primarily a civil institution, and often times was either an informal arrangement, or was a contractual agreement between private parties.

Religious Freedom is infringed upon when its rights and practices are forced upon conscientious objectors- as it regularly is. link

And how in the world does allowing gay marriage force anything upon anyone? How could allowing gay marriage force anything upon any kind of objector any less than prohibition gay marriage forces the same?

 

[starcraftzzz]

People from Boulder and Denver are trying to jam their morals down the throats of everyone else.....typical of liberals.

Oh they like to eat shit, so everyone must like to eat shit.....

Yes making it so we don’t all have to follow your morals is us jamming morals on everyone else.
retard

 

[clevergirl]

No, dear, this has everything to do with religion. Matrimony "marriage" is a covenant made between a man and a woman. A covenant instituted by God.

Who's god, yours? I don't acknowledge your god, I have my own deities, and in my spiritual tradition gay marriage is affirmed. So, are you ready to allow those with beliefs like mine maintain the same rights?

As I stated, the "government benefits" in the state of Colorado had already been granted by referendum in 2006. Any homosexual couple can go out and have a civil ceremony and have these "benefits". But the act of "marriage" is an act that has historically been granted between a "man and a woman". It is an institution that is historically religious.

I've demonstrated before how this is patently false. Homosexual marriages and unions have been known to humanity at least since the beginning of recorded history. But marriage has not always been a religious institution. As a matter of fact, the church being involved in the institution of marriage is a comparatively recent phenomena. In olden times, marriage was primarily a civil institution, and often times was either an informal arrangement, or was a contractual agreement between private parties.

Religious Freedom is infringed upon when its rights and practices are forced upon conscientious objectors- as it regularly is. link

And how in the world does allowing gay marriage force anything upon anyone? How could allowing gay marriage force anything upon any kind of objector any less than prohibition gay marriage forces the same?

I love the way some posters such as your self always seem to miss links posted about the very arguments they raise. As links previously posted show- In states where gay marriage laws have passed, law suits against conscientious objectors have been filed (from B and B owners to justices of the peace) who because of their religious convictions refused to rent rooms or perform ceremonies.

Your "religion" has absolutely nothing to do with the traditional religious act of marriage. You want a ceremony- go make one up call it "hemoroidage" or something like that. In Colorado homosexuals already enjoy the benefits of a married couple- what they want is to attack religious traditions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I know gays hate to hear this, but if you accept gay marriage as normal there is no logical reason to stop there and every other weird permutation of sexual relations will become normalized and our nation's demographics will collapse.

Allowing same-sex couples equal access to the law won’t result in the ‘normalization’ of ‘weird permutation of sexual relations,’ as such restrictions will remain legal, given those prohibitions are applied to everyone equally.

No, dear, this has everything to do with religion. Matrimony "marriage" is a covenant made between a man and a woman. A covenant instituted by God.

That may indeed be true. But it has nothing to do with the Constitution and the requirement of equal protection.

I love the way some posters such as your self always seem to miss links posted about the very arguments they raise. As links previously posted show- In states where gay marriage laws have passed, law suits against conscientious objectors have been filed (from B and B owners to justices of the peace) who because of their religious convictions refused to rent rooms or perform ceremonies.

Your "religion" has absolutely nothing to do with the traditional religious act of marriage. You want a ceremony- go make one up call it "hemoroidage" or something like that. In Colorado homosexuals already enjoy the benefits of a married couple- what they want is to attack religious traditions.

This also has nothing to do with the Constitutional issues raised. A right can not be preempted simply because someone may be offended by the exercising of that right.