Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

...I have no desire to have my country turn into Scandinavia and yet their homosexual marriage idea has burrowed in here like a tick.

Look, plenty of homosexuals hate religions because those religions have as fundamental doctrine that homosexuality is a sin. Of that group there is some proportion which is intent on sticking a shiv into Religion whenever they can and forcing Churches to submit to the homosexual agenda would bring immense feelings of satisfaction.

Look at what the homosexuals who sued the photographers and bakers were doing - they set out to compel people who wanted to avoid involvement with homosexual "weddings" to bend to the wishes of the homosexuals. Why on Earth do you believe that this mindset of forcing people to do what they object to won't be extended to Churches? Homosexuals have already shown that they're willing to force small business people to bend over and take it up the ass.

Rape of liberty is Mission #1. Churches won't be immune. Homosexuals have already demonstrated that they're willing to rape people's Freedom of Association so why would they put Freedom of Religion out of bounds?

Very good point. Of course they'll force churches to perform their "weddings". Just like they'll sue to force adoption agencies to surrender kids to them from their then legitimate "no separate but equal!" new battlecry..

When they're performing lewd sex acts in public as a matter of sober pride in a parade down public thoroughfares where they expect and hope children will be in attendance, this presents a problem. And that problem is:

"The civil rights of children to be protected from a situation a reasonable person would predict might cause them harm [what will they do behind closed doors if this is what they do in public as a matter of sober pride?] vs any civil rights gay sex behaviors might feel they have".

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

...I have no desire to have my country turn into Scandinavia and yet their homosexual marriage idea has burrowed in here like a tick.

Look, plenty of homosexuals hate religions because those religions have as fundamental doctrine that homosexuality is a sin. Of that group there is some proportion which is intent on sticking a shiv into Religion whenever they can and forcing Churches to submit to the homosexual agenda would bring immense feelings of satisfaction.

Look at what the homosexuals who sued the photographers and bakers were doing - they set out to compel people who wanted to avoid involvement with homosexual "weddings" to bend to the wishes of the homosexuals. Why on Earth do you believe that this mindset of forcing people to do what they object to won't be extended to Churches? Homosexuals have already shown that they're willing to force small business people to bend over and take it up the ass.

Rape of liberty is Mission #1. Churches won't be immune. Homosexuals have already demonstrated that they're willing to rape people's Freedom of Association so why would they put Freedom of Religion out of bounds?

Very good point. Of course they'll force churches to perform their "weddings". Just like they'll sue to force adoption agencies to surrender kids to them from their then legitimate "no separate but equal!" new battlecry..

When they're performing lewd sex acts in public as a matter of sober pride in a parade down public thoroughfares where they expect and hope children will be in attendance, this presents a problem. And that problem is:

"The civil rights of children to be protected from a situation a reasonable person would predict might cause them harm [what will they do behind closed doors if this is what they do in public as a matter of sober pride?] vs any civil rights gay sex behaviors might feel they have".

I also agree. There is a very good chance they will try very hard to force all churches to perform the weddings. How far they will get is hard to know though.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

...I have no desire to have my country turn into Scandinavia and yet their homosexual marriage idea has burrowed in here like a tick.

Look, plenty of homosexuals hate religions because those religions have as fundamental doctrine that homosexuality is a sin. Of that group there is some proportion which is intent on sticking a shiv into Religion whenever they can and forcing Churches to submit to the homosexual agenda would bring immense feelings of satisfaction.

Look at what the homosexuals who sued the photographers and bakers were doing - they set out to compel people who wanted to avoid involvement with homosexual "weddings" to bend to the wishes of the homosexuals. Why on Earth do you believe that this mindset of forcing people to do what they object to won't be extended to Churches? Homosexuals have already shown that they're willing to force small business people to bend over and take it up the ass.

Rape of liberty is Mission #1. Churches won't be immune. Homosexuals have already demonstrated that they're willing to rape people's Freedom of Association so why would they put Freedom of Religion out of bounds?

Very good point. Of course they'll force churches to perform their "weddings". Just like they'll sue to force adoption agencies to surrender kids to them from their then legitimate "no separate but equal!" new battlecry..

When they're performing lewd sex acts in public as a matter of sober pride in a parade down public thoroughfares where they expect and hope children will be in attendance, this presents a problem. And that problem is:

"The civil rights of children to be protected from a situation a reasonable person would predict might cause them harm [what will they do behind closed doors if this is what they do in public as a matter of sober pride?] vs any civil rights gay sex behaviors might feel they have".

I also agree. There is a very good chance they will try very hard to force all churches to perform the weddings. How far they will get is hard to know though.

Of course they are going to try, and those who claim differently are bald face liars.If my private business is a "public accommodation" than so to is a church. Those dishonest enough to deny that they will try know this fact to.

 

[Seawytch]

I also agree. There is a very good chance they will try very hard to force all churches to perform the weddings. How far they will get is hard to know though.

And this is indicated by all the churches that have forced to perform interracial and interfaith marriages, right?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I also agree. There is a very good chance they will try very hard to force all churches to perform the weddings. How far they will get is hard to know though.

And this is indicated by all the churches that have forced to perform interracial and interfaith marriages, right?

Care to show me any inter racial couples or interfaith couples who sued a bakery who didn't want to bake their cakes.

Another strawman from you.

 

[Silhouette]

...I have no desire to have my country turn into Scandinavia and yet their homosexual marriage idea has burrowed in here like a tick.

Look, plenty of homosexuals hate religions because those religions have as fundamental doctrine that homosexuality is a sin. Of that group there is some proportion which is intent on sticking a shiv into Religion whenever they can and forcing Churches to submit to the homosexual agenda would bring immense feelings of satisfaction.

Look at what the homosexuals who sued the photographers and bakers were doing - they set out to compel people who wanted to avoid involvement with homosexual "weddings" to bend to the wishes of the homosexuals. Why on Earth do you believe that this mindset of forcing people to do what they object to won't be extended to Churches? Homosexuals have already shown that they're willing to force small business people to bend over and take it up the ass.

Rape of liberty is Mission #1. Churches won't be immune. Homosexuals have already demonstrated that they're willing to rape people's Freedom of Association so why would they put Freedom of Religion out of bounds?

Very good point. Of course they'll force churches to perform their "weddings". Just like they'll sue to force adoption agencies to surrender kids to them from their then legitimate "no separate but equal!" new battlecry..

When they're performing lewd sex acts in public as a matter of sober pride in a parade down public thoroughfares where they expect and hope children will be in attendance, this presents a problem. And that problem is:

"The civil rights of children to be protected from a situation a reasonable person would predict might cause them harm [what will they do behind closed doors if this is what they do in public as a matter of sober pride?] vs any civil rights gay sex behaviors might feel they have".

I also agree. There is a very good chance they will try very hard to force all churches to perform the weddings. How far they will get is hard to know though.

Of course they are going to try, and those who claim differently are bald face liars.If my private business is a "public accommodation" than so to is a church. Those dishonest enough to deny that they will try know this fact to.

And don't forget the even more important issue of "No separate but equal!" loophole to force adoption to gays through the loophole of legal marriage. Children cannot vote. As such their civil rights are paramount to all not just from a moral standpoint but also from a legal one. They are our most unprotected citizens and all prudence must be excercised to anticipate any harm to them, physical, psychological, emotional or sexual...

Should we anticipate that a social movement that "prides" itself soberly in parades down thoroughfares doing lewd sexual exhibition where they anticipate and hope kids will be attending might pose harm to children behind closed doors of an adopted home?

Yes, yes we should. It is the most unexplored argument of the gay marriage debate and the gays hope to keep it that way on purpose. Give a legal loophole to these folks doing this where they hope kids will be looking on in public? Nah...

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

...I have no desire to have my country turn into Scandinavia and yet their homosexual marriage idea has burrowed in here like a tick.

Look, plenty of homosexuals hate religions because those religions have as fundamental doctrine that homosexuality is a sin. Of that group there is some proportion which is intent on sticking a shiv into Religion whenever they can and forcing Churches to submit to the homosexual agenda would bring immense feelings of satisfaction.

Look at what the homosexuals who sued the photographers and bakers were doing - they set out to compel people who wanted to avoid involvement with homosexual "weddings" to bend to the wishes of the homosexuals. Why on Earth do you believe that this mindset of forcing people to do what they object to won't be extended to Churches? Homosexuals have already shown that they're willing to force small business people to bend over and take it up the ass.

Rape of liberty is Mission #1. Churches won't be immune. Homosexuals have already demonstrated that they're willing to rape people's Freedom of Association so why would they put Freedom of Religion out of bounds?

Very good point. Of course they'll force churches to perform their "weddings". Just like they'll sue to force adoption agencies to surrender kids to them from their then legitimate "no separate but equal!" new battlecry..

When they're performing lewd sex acts in public as a matter of sober pride in a parade down public thoroughfares where they expect and hope children will be in attendance, this presents a problem. And that problem is:

"The civil rights of children to be protected from a situation a reasonable person would predict might cause them harm [what will they do behind closed doors if this is what they do in public as a matter of sober pride?] vs any civil rights gay sex behaviors might feel they have".

I also agree. There is a very good chance they will try very hard to force all churches to perform the weddings. How far they will get is hard to know though.

Of course they are going to try, and those who claim differently are bald face liars.If my private business is a "public accommodation" than so to is a church. Those dishonest enough to deny that they will try know this fact to.

If a church is forced to allow gay weddings, some members of it may be unhappy, but if the pastors of the church are forced to marry gays, that would be far worse and seen as openly supporting homosexuality. Just having gay weddings and not having the church become religiously involved is not necessarily support.

 

[Silhouette]

If a church is forced to allow gay weddings, some members of it may be unhappy, but if the pastors of the church are forced to marry gays, that would be far worse and seen as openly supporting homosexuality. Just having gay weddings and not having the church become religiously involved is not necessarily support.

And the question of forcing adoption agencies to allow gays to adopt given the pictures on the post before yours?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Of course they are going to try, and those who claim differently are bald face liars.If my private business is a "public accommodation" than so to is a church. Those dishonest enough to deny that they will try know this fact to.

I also agree. There is a very good chance they will try very hard to force all churches to perform the weddings. How far they will get is hard to know though.

And this is indicated by all the churches that have forced to perform interracial and interfaith marriages, right?

Care to show me any inter racial couples or interfaith couples who sued a bakery who didn't want to bake their cakes.

Another strawman from you.

SIL's statement was about Churches (which as private membership based organizations are not required to perform religious ceremonies for non-members), not Public Accommodation businesses.

And yet you agreed with SIL's strawman.


Care to provide any evidence that:

1. There have been any successful lawsuits from interracial couples if the Church in question claims rejecting interracial couples is a tenet of their faith?

2. There have been any successful lawsuits from interfaith couples if the Church in question claims rejecting interfaith couples is a tenet of their faith?

3. There have been any successful lawsuits from couples where one (or both) were divorced if the Church in question claims rejecting divorced couples (except for reasons of adultery) is a tenet of their faith?

4. Or since SSCM has been legal for at least a decade in at least one state, where there have been any successful lawsuits from same-sex couples if the Church in question claims rejecting same-sex couples is a tenet of their faith?​

Why do you agree with one strawman but challenge another. Shouldn't you have challenged both?

>>>>>

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Of course they are going to try, and those who claim differently are bald face liars.If my private business is a "public accommodation" than so to is a church. Those dishonest enough to deny that they will try know this fact to.

I also agree. There is a very good chance they will try very hard to force all churches to perform the weddings. How far they will get is hard to know though.

And this is indicated by all the churches that have forced to perform interracial and interfaith marriages, right?

Care to show me any inter racial couples or interfaith couples who sued a bakery who didn't want to bake their cakes.

Another strawman from you.

SIL's statement was about Churches (which as private membership based organizations are not required to perform religious ceremonies for non-members), not Public Accommodation businesses.

And yet you agreed with SIL's strawman.


Care to provide any evidence that:

1. There have been any successful lawsuits from interracial couples if the Church in question claims rejecting interracial couples is a tenet of their faith?

2. There have been any successful lawsuits from interfaith couples if the Church in question claims rejecting interfaith couples is a tenet of their faith?

3. There have been any successful lawsuits from couples where one (or both) were divorced if the Church in question claims rejecting divorced couples (except for reasons of adultery) is a tenet of their faith?

4. Or since SSCM has been legal for at least a decade in at least one state, where there have been any successful lawsuits from same-sex couples if the Church in question claims rejecting same-sex couples is a tenet of their faith?​

Why do you agree with one strawman but challenge another. Shouldn't you have challenged both?

>>>>>

Yes I should have challenged both, I wished to make a point on the first.

 

[Seawytch]

Care to show me any inter racial couples or interfaith couples who sued a bakery who didn't want to bake their cakes.

Another strawman from you.

The Strawman is yours since marriage equality and PA laws are in no way related.

PA laws protect interracial relationships and Christians in all 50 states, gays in about half. Waaaa.

 

[Redfish]

The poll at the beginning of the thread shows how americans feel about this topic.

Can we move on?

 

[Seawytch]

The poll at the beginning of the thread shows how americans feel about this topic.

Can we move on?

Yes, Americans understand that the 1st Amendment keeps churches from being forced to perform any ceremony against the tenants of their faith. Only fools fear otherwise.

 

[Redfish]

The poll at the beginning of the thread shows how americans feel about this topic.

Can we move on?

Yes, Americans understand that the 1st Amendment keeps churches from being forced to perform any ceremony against the tenants of their faith. Only fools fear otherwise.

Then you will tell the gay coalition to stop demanding that they do?

 

[Seawytch]

Then you will tell the gay coalition to stop demanding that they do?

No. The government will not force it, public opinion will.

 

[Redfish]

Then you will tell the gay coalition to stop demanding that they do?

No. The government will not force it, public opinion will.

Ya know, wytchey. We are never going to agree on this. I suspect that you are a pretty good person and that you are sincere in your beliefs, but so am I. I am willing to tolerate your lifestyle, but I will not tolerate the government or anyone else demanding that I accept it as normal.

Its your side that is intolerant and in-your-face (might be a poor choice of words) on this. Once your side learns tolerance we might be able to make progress.

 

[Redfish]

Then you will tell the gay coalition to stop demanding that they do?

No. The government will not force it, public opinion will.

then why has the public voted against it almost every time it is on a ballot?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then you will tell the gay coalition to stop demanding that they do?

No. The government will not force it, public opinion will.

then why has the public voted against it almost every time it is on a ballot?

Because the "almost every time" time frame you are relying on is from a decade ago. In the early 2000's (IIRC) ballot measures to discriminate against same-sex couples passed with 23-76% margins of victory. California's Prop 22 passed with 22%. By 2008/2009 (California Prop 8/Maine Question 1) the margins had shrunk to the point were a 2.5% change in the vote would have changed the outcome. Then in 2012 ALL FOUR ballot questions on the General Election side were won by the pro-equality side.

Times change and so has public opinion.


>>>>

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

If a church is forced to allow gay weddings, some members of it may be unhappy, but if the pastors of the church are forced to marry gays, that would be far worse and seen as openly supporting homosexuality. Just having gay weddings and not having the church become religiously involved is not necessarily support.

And the question of forcing adoption agencies to allow gays to adopt given the pictures on the post before yours?

No, no. no. Adoptions should not be forced that way either.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The poll at the beginning of the thread shows how americans feel about this topic.

Can we move on?

Yes, Americans understand that the 1st Amendment keeps churches from being forced to perform any ceremony against the tenants of their faith. Only fools fear otherwise.

Not a question of fear but one of genuine concern.