Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It was suggested more than once that churches lose their tax exemptions if they refused to perform gay marriages back when the Mayor of SF (I think it was him) decided he was going to issue licenses.
It was suggested more than once that churches lose their tax exemptions if they refused to perform gay marriages back when the Mayor of SF (I think it was him) decided he was going to issue licenses.
my suggestion is a two sided coin: if you let churches decide NOT to marry anyone who wants to get married, that has to go hand in hand with the state allowing any adult to have a civil union with any other adult.
and earlier, I think you intimated that no republicans here have ever expressed support for a ban on homosexuality...I wonder how many republicans on here decried the Bush administration's impassioned support for the state of Texas in Lawrence v Texas?
It would be as unenforceable as forcing a synagogue to marry a couple of Catholics...
And while I disagree with what the SF mayor said, if it was him, that would hardly be forcing churches to perform gay marriages, it would be forcing them to choose between paying taxes or marrying gays. All in all though, a highly stupid idea. If the gays are looking for a state recognized religious institution to sanctify their unions they need only open their own church.
True enough, but that is not what they want. They are demanding mainstream acceptance as being "normal," and they just aren't going to get it anytime soon.
They don't care what you think of them. What they want is for people to mind their own business and let them get married and lead their lives like everyone else.
Perhaps some do. The radicals that get all the attention DO care. They want to flaunt their aberrant lifestyle in our faces. When I say I don't care what they do in the confines of their own home, THAT is what I mean ... the confines of their own home. Civil union? Fine.
But the fact remains their lifestyle is based on aberrant sexual behavior, and they were and probably still are demanding a law that caters solely to that behavior.
So, as far as politics goes, I disagree. They DO care, They are demanding not only equality under the law; which, they already enjoy, they demand in addition that their aberrant behavior be recognized by law.
Radicals always get the most attention because they make the most noise. It's their extremism which makes the demands of the moderates appear reasonable. Has been the case in every movement to make major change.
But it is the radicals that appear to set the stereotype for their detractors to use to label ALL.
You would think these "detractors" would be a little more hesitant to label and stereotype with similar radicals that can be linked to their own camp.
You forget about me! I label myself a moderate! Hell, I don't even do the gay pride parades. I'm quite frankly afraid to go to them.Yeah, but I have yet to meet one that doesn't label themselves "moderates."
Thank you for the compliment, though I'm not sure how brilliant I am.
There is nothing wrong with being conflicted about an issue, it can be a useful tool and force a person to do some critical thinking, it causes one to search his or her conscience to discover how they really feel.
In your post to Vintij you said, "You are completely right about my fear of challenging God. I want to be more spiritual, I really do believe in God, and how can I call him wrong on gays, kids, and marriage? You are completely right about a lot of hypocrisy, it just feels weird to say, God youre right about this, but not that," to this I say, if there is a God, and if this God created man in his image, and if in doing so he gave us free will, the ability to think, wouldn't he want us to question things such as this? Consider, if you will, that the Bible was written by men, men with an agenda, men who had a strong desire to bend the beliefs of the general populace to conform to their beliefs. These men who chose what to put in the book and what to omit. I am of the opinion that this alone should lead us to question their intent. Perhaps God wants us to love and be tolerant of everyone, perhaps the men who wrote the Bible found the idea of homosexuality so abhorant that they designated it as evil and punishable by death. Something to think about.
You said that maybe you are just a "young fool," well, I don't know how old you are, but I assure that it is not a person's age that makes them a fool, among other things, it is their inability to consider that they may be wrong, it is their unwillingness to change and adapt their beliefs or opinions when confronted with the realization that they may be wrong.
When I was in high school I had an English teacher who changed the way I think. He showed us a movie. I recommend this movie to you, Inherit the Wind, 1960, Spencer Tracy and Frederick March. It is loosely based on the Scopes monkey trial, it uses the issue of evolution and the 1925 trial as a backdrop. But it also about McCarthyism. Jerome Lawrence and Bob Lee, the writers of the play say they weren't writing a play about the Scopes Trial; they were writing a play about McCarthyism. They were writing during the period of the blacklisting of authors and playwrights. Some blacklisted playwrights actually helped in writing it. They were just projecting back to another event, and then making a play about, trying to expose, how terrible McCarthyism was.
Never stop asking questions. The only stupid question is the question left unasked.
im fine with that.
Truth be told, I was never completely opposed to civil unions. Rights are fine, i have no problem with, just tolerate those who believe its a sin, as long as they bother you.
Perhaps some do. The radicals that get all the attention DO care. They want to flaunt their aberrant lifestyle in our faces. When I say I don't care what they do in the confines of their own home, THAT is what I mean ... the confines of their own home. Civil union? Fine.
But the fact remains their lifestyle is based on aberrant sexual behavior, and they were and probably still are demanding a law that caters solely to that behavior.
So, as far as politics goes, I disagree. They DO care, They are demanding not only equality under the law; which, they already enjoy, they demand in addition that their aberrant behavior be recognized by law.
Radicals always get the most attention because they make the most noise. It's their extremism which makes the demands of the moderates appear reasonable. Has been the case in every movement to make major change.
I respect your opinion, but I ask you this, if gay marriage happens, and most americans dont want it, is this forced?
Perhaps civil unions are a good comprimise, I dont want either side dictating american policy.
Kids should not be forced to learn that homosexuality is acceptable, their parents, and later on the kids, should make that decision himself
Where am i wrong here lol
I enjoy chatting with you truthmatters, I really think you care about the truth, and i respect that.
There was a time when most Americans thought marriages between people of different races was unnatural and immoral. It was only forty years ago that anti-miscegenation laws were deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. The prohibitions against same gender couples marrying or entering into civil unions have no more rational or moral basis than did the anti-miscegenation laws.
But it is the radicals that appear to set the stereotype for their detractors to use to label ALL.
Again, frankly the united states has bigger fish to fry then gays and abortions. Let each states voters, or even cities voters decide?
What do you think.
I dont care about the benefits, the gays, can have any benefit they want, they simply cant say, anyone who opposes homosexuality is wrong, because thats true bigotry, to not tolerate someone elses view, even if you think they are full of shiite
